Hone's split shows the redundancy of a single Maori cause.
THERE IS no such thing as "the Maori vote". Hone Harawira has shown that the Maori Party was based on an illusion: that Maori of all political stripes will march under one banner. They won't, any more than Pakeha will. Harawira departs in rage and spite, and the by-election will pit Maori against Maori.
Some will regret this, but in fact it was always so. Maori are divided by all the usual things: class, gender, religion, region, ideology, and taste. They are also divided tribally, although not as badly as the white folks. People of European descent are the most tribal on earth: twice they have involved the whole world in their murderous intertribal quarrels.
True, Maori are sometimes more or less united when making claims against their former colonists. Many Maori will agree that the Crown owes them money for breaking the treaty, and they're right. But even here there is no consensus. Winston Peters has ranted against the treaty "industry". Alan Duff tells his people to get off their bums and find a job.
And the tribes compete against one another in their treaty claims. That is why the big early claimants insisted on maintaining relativity between payouts. The tough-talking Tainui leader Robert Mahuta didn't want Ngai Tahu to win more than his tribe did. "I don't want Steve [Tipene O'Regan, the Ngai Tahu negotiator] roaring off in his Fairlane and leaving us behind."
The Maori Party sought to be a broad church and to force concessions from the big parties that would benefit all Maori. But this was impossible. It split over the seabed and foreshore issue, the great cause that had seemed to unite the culture. Certainly the rage had been very widespread. But the deal with National – Tariana Turia herself admitted it wasn't perfect – split the people. Now Harawira and his supporters cry "sellout".
Hubbard is quite right. The idea of a single party ever being able to wholly represent all of Maoridom was noble, but it was simplistic. We've mentioned in the past that although we have a strong Christian faith, we would never vote for a wholly Christian political party; its reach would be too narrow for it to be effective.
What was significant of course was the support that the Maori Party bled from Labour. The relationship between Labour and Maori dates back to 1936 when the leader of the Ratana church TW Ratana met with Michael Joseph Savage. From then through to the early 1990's, Labour had a lock on the Maori seats, thanks largely to the support of the Ratana church. Tau Henare broke Labour's stranglehold in 1993 winning Northern Maori (the forerunner to Te Tai Tokerau) for Winston Peters' new NZ First party, and NZ First took all the Maori seats in 1996. Labour wrested the seats back in 1999, but the advent of the Maori Party again robbed Labour of its dominance.
Was the Maori Party doomed to failure? Some would argue that a party formed around a single issue would indeed be. That argument is strengthened by the concessions that the Maori Party had to make in order for the replacement legislation to be passed a couple of months ago. The Maori Party though has had some policy victories, especially Tariana Turia's Whanau Ora policy. Time will judge its effectiveness.
Then Hubbard notes how the landscape has changed - read on:
The political division among Maori is more likely to grow than fade. As the Maori middle class grows, so will Maori support for National. As the number of Maori tycoons grows, so will the Maori vote for Act – if Act survives.
Key's government presides over a steeply growing inequality, just as governments have done for the last 25 years. This means a growing Maori underclass and growing misery. Some of the underclass might vote for the Mana Party, especially now that Harawira, guided by the unreformed lefty Matt McCarten, has rediscovered the working class. And some will return to Labour.
All these forces will clash in Te Tai Tokerau, and the upshot will be fascinating. Labour clearly hopes that the split between Harawira and his old party will allow Labour's Kelvin Davis to come through the middle. But even the experts disagree about how the split will go.
The Te Tai Tokerau by-election will indeed be fascinating. Just how strong is Hone Harawira's reported support base outside a vocal few? Does the Mana Party have the organisation and discipline to get its people to the polling booths?
And in closing, Hubbard notes that the Maori Party faces the same issues as all political parties; how to be all things to all its people; here's his conclusion:
What the split between Harawira and the Maori Party does is remind us that all parties, even small ones, are coalitions of various interests. The Maori Party was no different, representing workers as well as businesspeople, pragmatists and nationalists, feminists and conservatives, protesters and accountants. No wonder it bust.
This is an excellent piece by Anthony Hubbard. It's well worth a read this gloomy Sunday morning.
2 comments:
I read most of the above.
I disagree with all that I read - to the point that my continued reaction, while reading was thinking "What a load of utter bollocks!".
Upon reflection I was correct.
Indeed what a worthwhile read, albeit rather late on my part. When Harawira split from the Maori Party, my conclusion was that Maori interests in Parliament would suffer. However, my position has changed. Maori, as a sector of the NZ public, were never destined to have a TOTAL consensus on ALL issues relating to them. In my opinion, the Harawira chapter will have two outcomes: 1) Maori representation in the House will increase; and 2) issues relating to Maori will be subject to more robust and extensive debate.
Post a Comment