Barrie Davis: Rise or Fall of New Zealand

There is increasing evidence that our infrastructure – such as pipes and roads – is decaying and is not being maintained, that the quality of our systems – such as health and education – is reducing and not being controlled, and that our government – local and national – is abdicating their responsibility to any other entity but themselves.

There is the possibility that New Zealand, which has been one of the most successful countries in the world, is now failing (here). Furthermore, New Zealand is possibly an example of a downward trend in the West. Moreover, there is concern for the sustainability of civilization and the viability of the human species, primarily due to resources and environmental issues.

Various books on these issues have been published this year including Peak Human: What We Can Learn from the Rise and Fall of Golden Ages by historian Johan Norberg, which I will consider here.

Norberg examines seven of humanity’s greatest civilizations – ancient Athens, the Roman Republic, the Abbasid Caliphate, Song China, Renaissance Italy, the Dutch Republic and the present Anglosphere – and asks, how do we ensure that our current golden age doesn’t end? In a concluding chapter, Norberg draws from these golden ages to identify common factors to their initial rise and their subsequent fall.

Of the golden age of the Anglosphere, which includes New Zealand, Norberg says, “the early scientific and industrial achievements of Great Britain and the United States, which once seemed so unique, have been repeated in all corners of the world. Since 1820, the share of people in extreme poverty globally has been reduced from roughly 8 out of 10 to fewer that 1 out of 10. Life expectancy has shot up from thirty to seventy-four. Child mortality has declined from almost 50 per cent to less than 4 per cent. … Legal slavery has been abolished all over the world. … It’s as golden as it gets.”

He says that “Ages become golden because they imitate and innovate. … But there is a limit to how far imitation can get you. To make this progress self-propelling and really usher in a golden age, these cultures had to combine these new ideas and inputs with their own thoughts and methods to create innovations, from higher agricultural yields to artistic rebellions. This takes inclusivity back home.”

I expect that Norberg was not thinking of New Zealand when he wrote that, but that he intended it as a lecture for Europeans in America and Europe. Nevertheless, here in New Zealand, we are doing the opposite of what Norberg suggests by instituting Maori separatism. Instead of combining ideas and inputs from New Zealand’s highly multicultural population, Maori leaders are regressing the part-Maori population to archaic tribalism. Moreover, they are coercing the majority non-Maori population to imitate them in a travesty which has as an aspiration an implausible Disneyesque ‘Aotearoa’.

Norberg continues, “The other requisites for inclusivity are free markets and free minds. To bring something new into the world, people must be allowed to experiment with and exchange new theories, arguments, goods and services. Every major technological innovation is ‘an act of rebellion against conventional wisdom and vested interests’, explains the economic historian Joel Mokyr, and if conventional wisdom and vested interests are in positions to command what can and can’t be pursued, the result is stagnation.”

Again, New Zealand is doing the opposite. It needs to be understood that the traditional rolling of the eyes, the poking out of the tongue and the stomping of the foot do not constitute a rational argument. To the contrary, that is a primal reaction in an attempt to enforce archaic Maori knowledge and stop new ideas with a primitive display of threatened aggression, and it appears to work on our representative Parliament. However, it is done to pursue Maori vested interests and the result will be stagnation if not regression.

Nothing lasts forever, Norberg says, “We have had a run of roughly 200 years. Few golden ages last longer than that.” “Regrettably, many ominous signs of decline are clearly present in our time. … In a pattern that is familiar from the end of many golden ages, a series of crises, such as financial crashes, migration flows, the pandemic and geopolitical tensions, has replaced the confident, exploratory mindset with a sense that the world is dangerous and that we need to protect ourselves from it.”

Norberg further writes, “As the historian D. C. Somervell once remarked, societies don’t die from natural causes, but from suicide or murder – and it is nearly always the former.” “All these golden ages experienced a death-to-Socrates moment, when they soured on their previous commitment to open intellectual exchange and abandoned curiosity for control.”

Here, in New Zealand, our government is imposing education requirements and increasing undemocratic Maori control by whatever means they think they can get away with; the He Puapua report leading to the Auckland University compulsory Maori paper and the local government Maori wards are examples.

Norberg points out that “two different reactions against the sprawling diversity of modern society have emerged, which are mirror images of each other: a hard, nationalist right and a radical, liberal left. They are both obsessed with identity politics and pursue a dream of sameness, where alternative ideas and cultures are cancelled or deported out of their pure, homogenous utopia.”

As they have in previous years, that is how the politicians will try to run our election next year. Rather than properly address the issues, such as Maori separatism, they will talk in conceptual terms of their ideologies, in order to satisfy and so to harness our proclivity to perceive and judge in terms of opposites. We should refuse to participate. Make plain that if they want you to listen, they must talk in your terms, not theirs. For example, to restore democracy to New Zealand, specifically how and by when will they disestablish the Waitangi Tribunal and the Maori seats, which only produce ineffective inefficiencies which we cannot afford.

We have seen some positive approaches from the present government: Mr Luxon is correct to emphasize the economy, Mr Seymour is on track with his evidence-based rational arguments, and Mr Peters is appropriately forthright in manner. The frivolous behaviour of some of the present opposition is not appropriate, however, and they should demonstrate better respect for the Parliament we have elected to represent us. Overall, we now need Trumpian leadership to take us into a brave new world of the future, which will be quite different to the one we have now.

Norberg complains, however, “Like many old and tired societies, we have a tendency to try to fossilize what we have, and a growing number of regulations and standards make it more difficult for rapid adaptation and disruptive innovation.”

That may be true of New Zealand except that, as our name suggests, New Zealand is not an ‘old and tired’ society: The majority of the New Zealand population is descended from ‘confident, exploratory’ colonists; a significant minority is of motivated first- and second-generation Asians who bring a different perspective; and of course there are Polynesians.

However, the Polynesian category should not favour Maoris: ‘inclusive’ means considering everyone similarly, otherwise it’s obviously racist. The we-were-here-first argument does not get traction in Britain and nor should it here. Instead, rescind the principle of active protection and restore the principle of liberal democracy.

The phenomenon of race will inevitably disappear. However, the economies of European countries are presently failing due to uncontrolled migration. Norberg says, “This prompts the question of where the next golden age will come from. … We learn from history that it can happen suddenly, even in unexpected places.”

New Zealand has a dynamic mix of cultures and ideas, which, if we were able to synthesize and develop them, could produce an advancement in the evolution of civilization. Sir Geoffrey Palmer with his list of tweaks will not do. Everything needs to be on the table and it all needs to be carefully thought through to identify desired opportunities.

New Zealand is ours to lose and we will not participate optimally unless we perceive that there is a genuine possibility of failure if we do not. A frank, open debate is essential and the outcome must be for We the people to decide via a democratic process conducted in good faith. In short, scrap He Puapua and start again.

I feel sure that New Zealand could be more than just great again, we could be world leaders. But not with the disadvantage of inefficient, ineffective, undemocratic Maori separatism. Our representative Parliament needs to accept that we have empowered Government to facilitate us and our objectives, not to institute their misinformed globalist ideology and to then manipulate us into accepting it.

So, let’s get the ball rolling leading up to the next election with some penetrating questions and assertive suggestions to candidates.

Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.