The problem is not with Maori, or Te Pati Maori, and it is not so much even with the individuals concerned. Jockeying for position goes on in all parliamentary political parties but for the most part it is kept out of the public gaze as you have acknowledged. In fact, one of the main criticisms of Te Pati Maori is that it let its divisions spill out into public instead of being kept decently behind closed doors in the manner of other parties. I personally would rather have those divisions, personality conflicts and rivalries not present, but if they exist I would prefer to know they exist, and I think most Maori have a similar view of things. "Keeping up appearances" is not the top priority for Maori, as it is for many Europeans.
The source of the problem in Te Pati Maori is that the party is organised according to Westminster principles rather than rangatiratanga. Under the Westminster system, and particularly its MMP variant, no one has a clue how much public support there is for a particular list member of parliament. That was the crux of the Green Party imbroglio over Darleen Tana. Even constituency MPs cannot show whether or not they have continuing support in a political crisis (consider for example the case of National Party MP Sam Uffindell).
Most importantly, in the Westminster system there is no way that the collective voters can front up and say to an MP "We voted for you and we now think that you are pursuing your own interests rather than ours, and we want you to pull your head in or we will withdraw our mandate".
Rangatiratanga would solve all these problems through the mechanisms of continuous election, self-determined constituencies and the open ballot.
So let's go looking for across the board solutions for the country's political woes, rather than focusing solely on Te Pati Maori, which is only one example of how the Westminster system can let the people down.
Thanks for the perfect breakdown of the fiasco. What a farce that these idiots get to sit in the House of Representatives. The Speaker needs to grow one and stop any ‘theatrics’ when they happen. Dress code has to be upheld, so many basic necessities for common civility please. Like Jordan Peterson would say, tidy your room, make your bed, the beginnings of true adulthood.
PS. The article is utterly sound. There's no interest by TPM in changing the trajectory for the underprivileged and working class of NZ who actually need a better vision for life. All of us. If TPM or a version of it is to continue = one word to say: "Innovation". Its not hard.
Not going to beat about the bush. To me Te Pāti Māori represents ongoing division of the nation, utterly opposed to a common identity, with a deeply entrenched separatist political ideology that is fundamentally racist in its outlook (with statements like "white feeding frenzy"). Its policies, such as they are, are based on aggressive victimhood, with the recent internal conflict reflecting the reality of a throwback culture built around warring tribal fiefdoms spilling into 2025. Unfortunately TPM can't just be ignored as a bad joke with MMP elevating it into a position of potential kingmaker, much like the Greens.
Ron Segal, you have written elsewhere that "the nation has been too slow in naturally assimilating a relatively backwards culture that is a brake on the economy. More generally, colonisation has been a key historical means by which more advanced cultures have spread globally".
So who is the racist here? You are obviously using "culture" as a surrogate for race, because while a race may be assimilated into a culture, a culture cannot be assimilated into anything. You are within your rights to be a self-declared colonialist who believes that European culture is superior to Maori culture (few among your fellow colonialists are able to be so frank) but most New Zealanders take a more objective and sympathetic view of Maoritanga. As I have argued many times previously, the Maori seats in the colonialist parliament are a chimaera, in which the principles of rangatiratanga are not allowed to be fully expressed and as a consequence Maori members of parliament, with their natural connections to hapu and iwi disrupted by the workings of the Westminster system, can easily be drawn off course.
If Maori were out of parliament, however, you would soon discover that it is not Maori who are the cause of "ongoing division". Those divisions arise out of the very core of colonial capitalism. The "common identity" you profess to favour cannot be based on either capitalism (as the ACT Party argues) or colonialism (as National, Labour and New Zealand First would like to have it). Our "common identity" (kotahitanga) as a nation can only come through universal recognition of rangatiratanga as the system of governance and Maoritanga as its cultural underpinning.
Te Pati Maori is accused of being "performative". But whose fault is that?
Is it the fault of Te Pati Maori? Or is it the fault of the major colonialist parties who want TPM to give them its votes in the House and hoist them into power, and for what?
What will Maori get out of such a pragmatic arrangement? They will get another Foreshore and Seabed Act or another Treaty Principles Bill.
Is it any wonder that Te Pati Maori is taking a purely performative approach to politics?
Apart from that, Maori have always been performative. Since Hone Heke felled the flag pole at Kororareka it has been a way in which Maori related to the colonial power. It is the way of the wero, a dramatic statement of willingness to make peace if the manuhiri choose peace or to go to war if the manuhiri choose war.
So do not dismiss this "performative politics". If you do, it is a sign that you are choosing war over peace.
I wonder how much influence ordinary TPM members will have in selecting the candidates for the Maori seats next year? Or will it all be about who wins the faction-fighting?
A good question which could never arise in a rangatiratanga environment. When we have self-determined constituencies and continuous election, party hierarchies will no longer control either the selection of the peoples representatives or their fate once elected.
I always hoped that the mess was/is just incompetence and that their just not great at joining the obvious dots, i.e. here for the betterment of the people. This is sad. The whole lot must be developmentally sluggish or something like that? LOL. I love (serious/ethical/strategic) radicals and rebels which = keeping "passion" as a basis for change/action by expressing views, values etc. in a reasoned way - esp. in public. Naughty Maoris!
The problem is not with Maori, or Te Pati Maori, and it is not so much even with the individuals concerned. Jockeying for position goes on in all parliamentary political parties but for the most part it is kept out of the public gaze as you have acknowledged. In fact, one of the main criticisms of Te Pati Maori is that it let its divisions spill out into public instead of being kept decently behind closed doors in the manner of other parties. I personally would rather have those divisions, personality conflicts and rivalries not present, but if they exist I would prefer to know they exist, and I think most Maori have a similar view of things. "Keeping up appearances" is not the top priority for Maori, as it is for many Europeans.
The source of the problem in Te Pati Maori is that the party is organised according to Westminster principles rather than rangatiratanga. Under the Westminster system, and particularly its MMP variant, no one has a clue how much public support there is for a particular list member of parliament. That was the crux of the Green Party imbroglio over Darleen Tana. Even constituency MPs cannot show whether or not they have continuing support in a political crisis (consider for example the case of National Party MP Sam Uffindell).
Most importantly, in the Westminster system there is no way that the collective voters can front up and say to an MP "We voted for you and we now think that you are pursuing your own interests rather than ours, and we want you to pull your head in or we will withdraw our mandate".
Rangatiratanga would solve all these problems through the mechanisms of continuous election, self-determined constituencies and the open ballot.
So let's go looking for across the board solutions for the country's political woes, rather than focusing solely on Te Pati Maori, which is only one example of how the Westminster system can let the people down.
Thanks for the perfect breakdown of the fiasco. What a farce that these idiots get to sit in the House of Representatives. The Speaker needs to grow one and stop any ‘theatrics’ when they happen. Dress code has to be upheld, so many basic necessities for common civility please. Like Jordan Peterson would say, tidy your room, make your bed, the beginnings of true adulthood.
PS. The article is utterly sound. There's no interest by TPM in changing the trajectory for the underprivileged and working class of NZ who actually need a better vision for life. All of us. If TPM or a version of it is to continue = one word to say: "Innovation". Its not hard.
Not going to beat about the bush. To me Te Pāti Māori represents ongoing division of the nation, utterly opposed to a common identity, with a deeply entrenched separatist political ideology that is fundamentally racist in its outlook (with statements like "white feeding frenzy"). Its policies, such as they are, are based on aggressive victimhood, with the recent internal conflict reflecting the reality of a throwback culture built around warring tribal fiefdoms spilling into 2025. Unfortunately TPM can't just be ignored as a bad joke with MMP elevating it into a position of potential kingmaker, much like the Greens.
Ron Segal, you have written elsewhere that "the nation has been too slow in naturally assimilating a relatively backwards culture that is a brake on the economy. More generally, colonisation has been a key historical means by which more advanced cultures have spread globally".
So who is the racist here? You are obviously using "culture" as a surrogate for race, because while a race may be assimilated into a culture, a culture cannot be assimilated into anything. You are within your rights to be a self-declared colonialist who believes that European culture is superior to Maori culture (few among your fellow colonialists are able to be so frank) but most New Zealanders take a more objective and sympathetic view of Maoritanga. As I have argued many times previously, the Maori seats in the colonialist parliament are a chimaera, in which the principles of rangatiratanga are not allowed to be fully expressed and as a consequence Maori members of parliament, with their natural connections to hapu and iwi disrupted by the workings of the Westminster system, can easily be drawn off course.
If Maori were out of parliament, however, you would soon discover that it is not Maori who are the cause of "ongoing division". Those divisions arise out of the very core of colonial capitalism. The "common identity" you profess to favour cannot be based on either capitalism (as the ACT Party argues) or colonialism (as National, Labour and New Zealand First would like to have it). Our "common identity" (kotahitanga) as a nation can only come through universal recognition of rangatiratanga as the system of governance and Maoritanga as its cultural underpinning.
Te Pati Maori is accused of being "performative". But whose fault is that?
Is it the fault of Te Pati Maori? Or is it the fault of the major colonialist parties who want TPM to give them its votes in the House and hoist them into power, and for what?
What will Maori get out of such a pragmatic arrangement? They will get another Foreshore and Seabed Act or another Treaty Principles Bill.
Is it any wonder that Te Pati Maori is taking a purely performative approach to politics?
Apart from that, Maori have always been performative. Since Hone Heke felled the flag pole at Kororareka it has been a way in which Maori related to the colonial power. It is the way of the wero, a dramatic statement of willingness to make peace if the manuhiri choose peace or to go to war if the manuhiri choose war.
So do not dismiss this "performative politics". If you do, it is a sign that you are choosing war over peace.
Thanks Bryce: lucid and great analysis as usual.
I wonder how much influence ordinary TPM members will have in selecting the candidates for the Maori seats next year? Or will it all be about who wins the faction-fighting?
A good question which could never arise in a rangatiratanga environment. When we have self-determined constituencies and continuous election, party hierarchies will no longer control either the selection of the peoples representatives or their fate once elected.
I always hoped that the mess was/is just incompetence and that their just not great at joining the obvious dots, i.e. here for the betterment of the people. This is sad. The whole lot must be developmentally sluggish or something like that? LOL. I love (serious/ethical/strategic) radicals and rebels which = keeping "passion" as a basis for change/action by expressing views, values etc. in a reasoned way - esp. in public. Naughty Maoris!