Here is the way I see it. While I fully acknowledge the discrepancies between the Maori and English versions of Te Tiriti Waitangi, the debate on whether Maori ceded sovereignty to the British Crown is sublimated by a long list of subsequent acts (and laws) that hold New Zealand to be an independent sovereign state. Parliamentary sovereignty has long been considered a foundational constitutional rule.
I was born in India, a former colony that does not recognize the Crown. I then studied and worked in the United States for many years; another former colony that does not recognize the Crown either. I strongly dislike the idea of having an unelected monarch as the Head of State and the Union Jack on our flag. But that is the law and in agreeing to accept New Zealand citizenship, I have agreed to abide by those as well as the multitude of other laws proclaimed by the nation’s Parliament.
This is the essence of a Parliamentary democracy; that all citizens are equal under the law.
While my interpretation may well be wrong, the fact remains that the proponents of the “Maori did not cede sovereignty” view are ignoring a key issue, which necessitates the need to have the conversation around the Treaty Principles.
According to the 2023 census, New Zealand’s population is 4,999,923. Out of these 3,383, 742 (68%) identify as Pakeha, 887, 493 (18%) as Maori, 442, 632 (9%) as Pacifica, 707,598 (14%) as Asian, 92, 760 (2%) as Middle Eastern/Latin American/African and 1% other. (The percentages add to more than 100 since people are allowed to indicate more than one ethnicity.)
The 1987 Court of Appeals decision argued that the treaty “signified a partnership between Pakeha and Maori requiring each other to act towards the other reasonably and with the utmost good faith” and that “the duty of the Crown was not just passive but extended to active protection of Māori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable.”
But this emphasis on a bicultural view of New Zealand citizenship is antithetical to the basic tenets of a liberal democracy. If the treaty indeed establishes a partnership between two out of many ethnic groups residing in the country, and we are going to view our political process through this lens, then what does this imply for the quarter of the population that is neither Maori nor Pakeha?
This quarter of the population typically originates from other colonized nations, are not necessarily financially well-off and are people who have ventured to our shores in search of a better life. Did these people somehow become colonizers and the privileged by the wave of a magic wand? Or are they destined to be second tier citizens governed by an uneasy alliance between the Pakeha and Maori? If the basic argument is about equity then why are these people being excluded?
As David Lange pointed out in a 2000 speech (paragraph 9):
This is the essence of a Parliamentary democracy; that all citizens are equal under the law.
While my interpretation may well be wrong, the fact remains that the proponents of the “Maori did not cede sovereignty” view are ignoring a key issue, which necessitates the need to have the conversation around the Treaty Principles.
According to the 2023 census, New Zealand’s population is 4,999,923. Out of these 3,383, 742 (68%) identify as Pakeha, 887, 493 (18%) as Maori, 442, 632 (9%) as Pacifica, 707,598 (14%) as Asian, 92, 760 (2%) as Middle Eastern/Latin American/African and 1% other. (The percentages add to more than 100 since people are allowed to indicate more than one ethnicity.)
The 1987 Court of Appeals decision argued that the treaty “signified a partnership between Pakeha and Maori requiring each other to act towards the other reasonably and with the utmost good faith” and that “the duty of the Crown was not just passive but extended to active protection of Māori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable.”
But this emphasis on a bicultural view of New Zealand citizenship is antithetical to the basic tenets of a liberal democracy. If the treaty indeed establishes a partnership between two out of many ethnic groups residing in the country, and we are going to view our political process through this lens, then what does this imply for the quarter of the population that is neither Maori nor Pakeha?
This quarter of the population typically originates from other colonized nations, are not necessarily financially well-off and are people who have ventured to our shores in search of a better life. Did these people somehow become colonizers and the privileged by the wave of a magic wand? Or are they destined to be second tier citizens governed by an uneasy alliance between the Pakeha and Maori? If the basic argument is about equity then why are these people being excluded?
As David Lange pointed out in a 2000 speech (paragraph 9):
Here I come back to the government’s aim of closing the gaps between rich and poor, and the way in which it was overtaken in public understanding by the subsidiary goal of closing the gaps between Maori and the rest. I don’t describe the second goal as lesser than the first out of any wish to minimise the effect of growing inequality on Maori people. What I mean is that from the point of view of a democratic government, the first goal can encompass the second, but the second can’t encompass the first. If the government’s goal is to reduce inequality, it follows that it will do whatever it can to improve the position of Maori.
Democratic government can accommodate Maori political aspiration in many ways. It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Maori people. It can delegate authority, and allow the exercise of degrees of Maori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both.
We have a choice. We can choose to remain a liberal democracy where everyone counts, or we can become an ethnocentric nation based on identity politics and riven by ethnic tensions. Make no mistake; the current path where particular ethnicities are granted “partnership” status can only lead to the eventual appearance of more ethnic parties fighting it out for a seat at the table.
Ananish Chaudhuri is Professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland. Besides Auckland, he has taught at Harvard Kennedy School, Rutgers University, Washington State University and Wellesley College. This article was first published HERE
12 comments:
How about if kiwis don't want a multi ethnic, multi cultural Nation?
The National Party OWE NZ an explanation as exactly why, and in detail, that it is that they wilfully ignore the issues raised in this opinion. To me at, their stance is bizarre to say the least .
Well yes, that is a very good question. I also think we should remind ourselves that the coloniser of the 1840's were a pretty poor but hardy bunch of people too and with good intentions with Christian values mostly wanting to create peace and quite frankly to ensure harmony and working hard to create an equal society. There was an agreement made called the Treaty of Waitangi where everyone was given equal status. We should all presume that still holds and know what it means.
Around the same time there were colonisers from other parts of the world and have been ever since.
Just a nation of the so called British and Maori, we are a country that is multiracial that's just the way it is and it was intended to be so, accept it and move on. What David Lange said back then shouldn't be any different today and we don't want the world to be owned by the globalist elite do we?
Yes, I agree Professor, everyone should count, and I count an unelected monarch and the Union Jack among my heritage markers. You are entitled to your dislike of these as I am entitled to uphold their importance to my ancestry and, even more importantly, their importance to the people who signed a treaty in 1840 and who have benefitted to an extraordinary extent from the influence of the British monarchy and the Union Jack. Although, as an Indian, your country has little love for those symbols, you must admit the British conferred lasting benefits on your country as well. Furthermore, you are living in a country where you can express your opinions without fear, again because of the influence that the British wrought.
An excellent contribution from Professor Choudhuri. As a corollary - surely we should address disparities wherever they are to be found. And we find that indices of the heath and wellbeing of Pacific People are the worst of any numerically significant ethnic and cultural group, as are their socioeconomic indices.
Conversations about the Treaty make only passing reference to Pacific People or to others who experience shortfalls in quality of life. These conversations must move away from the Treaty to questions on how to achieve equality of opportunity for everyone and generate a better life for each and every person. David Lillis
The new maori Queen has already stated that maori will be seeing the return of all their lands, ethnic cleansing in the south pacific?
An excellent article. Thank You, Professor.
I remember back in the early 1980's working for the (then) Dept of Health, we got the big news/dictate from Head Office that we were to celebrate being "bicultural".
My workmate, Laurie and I (being Caucasian) pondered as to where would our office staff who were Chinese, Samoan, Native African, Portuguese and Indian fit into this "bicultural" dictate.
As Prof. Chaudhuri said:
"Here is the way I see it. While I fully acknowledge the discrepancies between the Maori and English versions of Te Tiriti Waitangi, the debate on whether Maori ceded sovereignty to the British Crown is sublimated by a long list of subsequent acts (and laws) that hold New Zealand to be an independent sovereign state. Parliamentary sovereignty has long been considered a foundational constitutional rule."
I agree. The way I see it, this is at the core of the real problem. The Treaty has been removed from its role and context in the historical unfolding of NZ's constitutional arrangement, and transplanted into an amplified and distorted role in contemporary politics that is out of all proportion relative to its original role and purpose. As a result we have arrived at an untenable place as Lange identified back in 2000 and many have outlined since.
Whether the Treaty Principles Bill introduced by ACT can rectify the situation or not, I don't know. Regardless, the current situation will remain untenable until it is rectified. Ideally, it will be politicians who wake up to the gravity of the problem and find a way out. The Judiciary has already shown its complicity in engineering the current crisis. The ensuing mess has landed at feet of Parliament. If someone in Parliament has a better idea than ACT for dealing with this problem, now would be a good time to present it. So far, the Treaty Principles Bill is the only show in town.
It's too late, Anon. It is here. I worked with and welcome many fellow health care folk from all over the globe.
Cut to the chase: an immediate referendum on
democracy for all citizens
or
ethnocracy to secure special rights/privileges in all areas of society for one specific group.
This is the stark reality of the choice today.
Also Principle 2 of ACT's Treaty Bill: the clear wording of ACT has been changed by National to reflect its own position/commitment to a 2 -tier society. What is National's intention in making this move?
I'm pleased you have entered the fray Professor, but I'm afraid you're just a 'Pakeha' like the majority of the citizenry of New Zealand. But I do agree, we absolutely need to have the discussion about what it means to be a New Zealander - whether that is related back to the Treaty and its claimed 'principles' or not. As Hobson reputedly stated upon each Chief signing the Treaty "he iwi tahi tatou", and surely that is the only way this country has any hope of progressing to the benefit of all? Those that suggest otherwise are invariably fools, or grifters seeking to benefit themselves at the ultimate cost of this country's social cohesion and advancement. Bring on that discussion, but be wary of the MSM which, to date, clearly has a different agenda.
Today New Zealand is a multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial country. This is a fact, not an opinion. Some can pretend that it is a bicultural society, but that does not change reality. We can look ahead as a nation of different people with equal rights or slowly go into oblivion in ethnic disputes.
Post a Comment