According to Turei, opposition to Māori electorates, criticism of Māori-specific policies, and attempts to restore the same democratic rules for all New Zealanders are evidence of hypocrisy, racism and an assault on constitutional democracy.
But there is a fundamental problem with this argument. Turei appears to begin with the assumption that political arrangements based on race are legitimate, and then declares anyone who challenges them to be racist.
That is not an argument. It is simply a way of shutting down debate.
Take the Māori electorates. Turei argues that Māori candidates genuinely campaign for votes while somehow implying that criticism of the system itself is racist. But nobody is suggesting Māori should be prevented from voting, standing for Parliament or winning elections. Māori New Zealanders can do all those things already — and do so successfully.
The objection is to maintaining a separate system of parliamentary representation based upon ancestry.
Surely that is a legitimate constitutional question in a modern democracy.
Turei also attacks the Government's removal of race-based requirements and consultation arrangements, describing this as part of a wider assault on Māori rights and sovereignty. Yet equality before the law does not become racism merely because it removes preferential treatment.
If a law, public service, funding programme or political institution treats people differently according to race, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether that distinction is justified — or whether the same rules should apply to everyone.
That is not an attack on Māori. It is an argument for citizenship rather than ancestry being the basis upon which the state treats its people.
The same problem runs through Turei's defence of the idea that Māori possess a separate political sovereignty existing alongside the sovereignty of the New Zealand state. She dismisses opposition to this proposition as ideological, as though only those who disagree are driven by ideology.
But the creation of parallel political authority is itself a profoundly ideological proposition.
New Zealand has one Parliament. It passes laws for all New Zealanders. Governments are elected by the people and can be removed by the people. That is the democratic system we have.
To argue for a separate constitutional authority based upon descent is not simply to demand recognition of Māori culture, language or history. It is to propose a different political structure in which ancestry may carry constitutional consequences unavailable to other citizens.
New Zealanders are entitled to debate that proposition — and reject it — without being called racists.
Indeed, there is a striking contradiction in Turei's argument. She condemns politicians for supposedly undermining democracy while objecting to elected governments changing policies they were elected to change.
The present Government did not seize power. It was elected. Its parties campaigned openly on removing or reducing race-based policies, restoring equal access to public services and rejecting co-governance arrangements that give different political weight to different groups.
People may dislike those policies. They may campaign to reverse them. That is democracy.
But democracy does not mean that one side's preferred constitutional arrangements become permanently immune from democratic change.
Turei complains that Māori are the “primary target” of the Government's policies. Yet the changes she criticises generally affect the rules by which the entire country is governed. Removing racial distinctions does not remove Māori from New Zealand. Māori remain citizens, voters, candidates, business owners, landowners, professionals and participants in every aspect of national life.
Equality does not erase anyone.
Nor does rejecting separate political rights amount to denying Māori history or culture. New Zealand can respect and celebrate its indigenous heritage without creating a country divided into different political categories according to ancestry.
The real hypocrisy is the insistence that equality is discriminatory, while unequal treatment is presented as justice.
New Zealanders should reject that false choice.
We can oppose racism in all its forms. We can respect Māori culture and history. And we can still believe that the future of New Zealand should rest upon one democratic system, one standard of citizenship and equal political rights for every New Zealander.
That is not racism. - That is democracy.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
That is not an argument. It is simply a way of shutting down debate.
Take the Māori electorates. Turei argues that Māori candidates genuinely campaign for votes while somehow implying that criticism of the system itself is racist. But nobody is suggesting Māori should be prevented from voting, standing for Parliament or winning elections. Māori New Zealanders can do all those things already — and do so successfully.
The objection is to maintaining a separate system of parliamentary representation based upon ancestry.
Surely that is a legitimate constitutional question in a modern democracy.
Turei also attacks the Government's removal of race-based requirements and consultation arrangements, describing this as part of a wider assault on Māori rights and sovereignty. Yet equality before the law does not become racism merely because it removes preferential treatment.
If a law, public service, funding programme or political institution treats people differently according to race, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether that distinction is justified — or whether the same rules should apply to everyone.
That is not an attack on Māori. It is an argument for citizenship rather than ancestry being the basis upon which the state treats its people.
The same problem runs through Turei's defence of the idea that Māori possess a separate political sovereignty existing alongside the sovereignty of the New Zealand state. She dismisses opposition to this proposition as ideological, as though only those who disagree are driven by ideology.
But the creation of parallel political authority is itself a profoundly ideological proposition.
New Zealand has one Parliament. It passes laws for all New Zealanders. Governments are elected by the people and can be removed by the people. That is the democratic system we have.
To argue for a separate constitutional authority based upon descent is not simply to demand recognition of Māori culture, language or history. It is to propose a different political structure in which ancestry may carry constitutional consequences unavailable to other citizens.
New Zealanders are entitled to debate that proposition — and reject it — without being called racists.
Indeed, there is a striking contradiction in Turei's argument. She condemns politicians for supposedly undermining democracy while objecting to elected governments changing policies they were elected to change.
The present Government did not seize power. It was elected. Its parties campaigned openly on removing or reducing race-based policies, restoring equal access to public services and rejecting co-governance arrangements that give different political weight to different groups.
People may dislike those policies. They may campaign to reverse them. That is democracy.
But democracy does not mean that one side's preferred constitutional arrangements become permanently immune from democratic change.
Turei complains that Māori are the “primary target” of the Government's policies. Yet the changes she criticises generally affect the rules by which the entire country is governed. Removing racial distinctions does not remove Māori from New Zealand. Māori remain citizens, voters, candidates, business owners, landowners, professionals and participants in every aspect of national life.
Equality does not erase anyone.
Nor does rejecting separate political rights amount to denying Māori history or culture. New Zealand can respect and celebrate its indigenous heritage without creating a country divided into different political categories according to ancestry.
The real hypocrisy is the insistence that equality is discriminatory, while unequal treatment is presented as justice.
New Zealanders should reject that false choice.
We can oppose racism in all its forms. We can respect Māori culture and history. And we can still believe that the future of New Zealand should rest upon one democratic system, one standard of citizenship and equal political rights for every New Zealander.
That is not racism. - That is democracy.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.