Whyte Power: Act and the winner takes all society

David Seymour and Jamie Whyte. H/T Wikipedia.

You can’t make this up: 

Yesterday I published the speech that I gave to the ACT Party Waikato Conference on Saturday. It concerned a fundamental principle of Western civilisation. 

I said that all citizens should be equal before the law. 

I realise that in some countries, such as Afghanistan, that might be a controversial idea…  

But in New Zealand today, you might expect the principle of equality before the law to be uncontroversial. You might expect that a declaration of commitment to it would be greeted with quiet equanimity, perhaps even a yawn. 

Not so. My declaration has triggered vitriolic hostility.

And so it should. The argument is absurd. In Whyte’s world substantive inequality is not the residue of settler colonialism, but a failure – on the part of Māori, of course - to commit to equality before the law. This is where equality before the law is not a substantive standard, but a formal one. Theoretical purity is more important that actual circumstance. 

@MorganGodfery for a phd in philosophy there's almost an intellectual cowardice in his unwavering, dogmatic adherence to select principles
— book hatin goodall (@AdamGoodallYes) July 29, 2014

Redneckery’s appeal is in its simplicity. One believes that the history of racism is something that happened – not something that is happening. If the redneck accepts that then there’s no need to acknowledge – let alone examine – how conditions yesterday shape circumstances today. Instead a neat line is drawn between the past and the present. Thus Whyte is prepared to admit some injustice – the sort that fits his dogmatic view of “property rights” – yet he rejects any form of continuing injustice. Utopia is so close! If only the maoris embraced equality before the law! 

Every ideology is built on stilts. The idea that, if all you unseeing others committed to living The Ideology, then utopia will arrive. It’s a particularly nasty form of white male syndrome – the need to universalise everything. Everything. 

You’ll know I’m quite serious when I say white male syndrome. Only last week Colin Craig – a self-described conservative – was pitching to the same audience. That is, the redneck and his supposed desire for equality in liberal democracy. Whyte is appealing to the same audience. But the argument is not, in fact, an argument – it’s a strategy. White men are practising identity politics. 

Not explicitly so. They dress it in the myth of the level playing field. I wrote about this last week. People of privilege push the idea that “all people are created equal and any deviation from that principle constitutes the real injustice”. The idea goes something like this: “injustice is not the fact that you are poor, dumb and incarcerated, but that you need and receive targeted rights because of it”. Formal inequality – that is, anything that isn’t one size fits all – is the real injustice. Substantive inequality? Nope - no injustice there, apparently. 

This is white male syndrome. It’s a rearguard action designed to protect actual privilege – the one of the white kind. If disadvantage is a matter of personal responsibility – the fault of the poor sod stuck in her feckless and self-defeating ways - then no response is required from the privileged. This is what Whyte is arguing for. Not so much a winner takes all approach – the game is rigged, after all - but the pre-determined winner keeps all. In New Zealand, the game was played 174 years ago. The winners took all and Jamie Whyte – who’s on the winning team – will make damn sure they keep it all.

Maori politics: crises, opportunities and the Greens

I was born in 1991. In 1991 Pita Sharples was working across the public service and he was a visiting professor at Auckland University. In 1991 Pita Sharples was working with and for Maori. In the decades before 1991, Pita Sharples was working with and for Maori. He’s still working with and for Maori. For that, he has my deepest respect.

Though service is the rent we pay for living. Pita Sharples’ record of service is long and it's his time to step down.

Crisis versus opportunity

There are two views on Pita’s resignation: that it represents a crisis in the Maori Party or that it presents an opportunity for political renewal.

Well, political crisis’s trigger resignations, but vacancies come with opportunities.

Generational change will create a break from the political period that Turia and Sharples embody. The post-settlement era is close and the Maori renaissance era is closing. The Maori Party must use the leadership change (and the ideological and personnel openings that that change creates) to renegotiate the contract between their party and the Maori electorate.

That means recreating the Maori Party’s political identity. The party was founded in opposition to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and based on the premise that the party wasn’t left or right – it was Maori. 

In other words, the Maori Party was a pan-Maori political party. That has failed. The Maori political landscape has fragmented (Mana has split to the left, Labour might be “rising” and the Greens are emerging). The Maori Party doesn’t have to accept the left/right dichotomy, but it must carve a coherent position (e.g. tino rangatiratanga for the post-settlement era). There is space for a kaupapa Maori party – that is independent (and is seen to be). The Maori Party, in its current arrangements at least, is not (and is not seen to be). A leader who doesn’t hold a ministerial warrant (e.g. Te Ururoa) is better positioned to reclaim the party’s independence.

However, the great barriers are that the Maori Party is accountable against its record and Pita Sharples helps anchor the Maori Party’s remaining support. He’s Papa Pita – one of the most trusted Maori MPs. Pita has to leave on his own terms. If his resignation is seen to be forced that will compromise the mana of the man and the party. In that sense, the resignation poses its consequences.

Who deserved the blame?

It’s unfair that Pita has shouldered the blame. Na Raihania’s poor placing in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti byelection was not solely a reaction against the leadership battles in the Maori Party. The party’s troubles are more deep rooted.

If you view politics as a horse race it’s tempting to identify leadership battles, disunity and the back-and-forth of the political process as reasons for the poor showing of party X or politician Y. Reality is more complicated.

Doubts developed in the Maori Party’s first term. The party entered government on a high. Te Tai Tonga elected a new Maori Party MP and a “mana-enhancing” deal was reached with the Prime Minister and the National Party. After the conflict of the previous four years, 2008 felt positively peaceful.

When in Rome, do as the Romans. When in government, don't always do as the government. From 2008 to 2011 the fatal narrative crept in and solidified: that the Maori Party wins had been more symbolic than substantive and that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National. Colin James encapsulated it well in arguing that the Maori Party is and was seen as National’s “proxy” in the Maori seats.

The party swallowed its defeats, but its wins weren’t seen to neutralise the eroding trust that the defeats had triggered. The debacle over the Rugby World Cup broadcasting rights, a defeat for Maori seats on the Auckland Council and bad faith in the Tuhoe settlement negotiations contributed to the idea that the Maori Party was part of a mana-diminishing deal. The party also voted for unpopular pieces of legislation (e.g. the ETS) and (consistent with their supply and confidence agreement) a budget that Maori opposed. The Maori Party’s strength is that it’s independent and accountable to Maori (c.f. Labour). But its independence was beginning to be questioned.

In 2010 the negative narratives started developing and the consensus within the party begun unravelling. Hone Harawira tried to cross the floor against budget 2010 and he appeared increasingly isolated. In early 2011 the consensus broke when Hone – after taking a swipe against the Maori Party in the Sunday Star Times – was expelled. The Maori Party split right and Hone (soon to become the Mana Party) split left with prominent Maori Party members (including Annette Sykes, Angeline Greensill and Mereana Pitman) too. The narrative that a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for National solidified and Maori politics divided along class lines. Mana carved a position for the Maori working class and (mostly by omission) the Maori Party was seen to be the party for iwi and the Maori middle class.

Accepting a deal with the National Party was always a risk. Although Labour’s vote had been trending downwards, the Maori electorates remained overwhelmingly left. There was little affection for National, but a grudging acceptance that Maori should operate across the political acceptance. Tough circumstances (e.g. high Maori unemployment) took that acceptance to its limits and in 2011 it broke. With this in mind, the decline of the Maori Party is best traced to 2011 – when the narratives solidified, Hone steered half of the party left and broke Maori politics along class lines - rather than contemporary leadership trouble.

Te Ururoa is the heir apparent

Te Ururoa Flavell is the ideal leader for the contemporary Maori Party: pragmatic and respected across the left and right. He also offers continuity post-Turia/Sharples and a generational change.

However, the party must consider whether their interests are better represented by an external leader. A leader who isn’t tainted by the debacles in 2011 or the leadership disunity in 2012 and 2013. Rawiri Taonui has identified Naida Glavish as a potential leader. If she were elected that would be a platform for her to succeed Pita in Tamaki Makaurau.

Alternatively, a co-leadership arrangement. Glavish as the female leader and Te Ururoa as the male leader. That gives Te Ururoa the position he has been seeking for (literally) years and Glavish represents a break from the toxic period 2008-2011. Rahui Katene has indicated that she is interested in co-leading the party too. However, Rahui wasn't reelected as the MP for Te Tai Tonga in 2011. She does not represent the clean break that Glavish does. Glavish is the clean break, Te Ururoa is the continuity.

Tamaki Makaurau has fallen

Unless the Mana and the Maori Party come to a deal, say the Maori Party runs Glavish and Mana runs a party vote campaign, then Tamaki Makaurau will fall to Labour.

In 2008 Pita won a 7000 vote majority and the Maori Party secured 28% of the party vote. In 2011 Shane Jones came within 1000 votes of unseating Pita and the Maori Party secured 14% of the party vote. The Mana Party secured (literally) half of the Maori Party’s 2008 vote.

The new Maori Party candidate is not guaranteed to inherit Pita’s vote. The vote will fragment further and the Labour candidate (Shane Jones isn’t guaranteed) will storm through the middle. If Mana and the Maori Party want Tamaki Makaurau to remain with a kaupapa Maori Party then they must come to an arrangement.

Te Tai Hauauru might not fall
Ken Mair has been named as a potential replacement. I think he can win. He has the name recognition and the reputation (he is a respected activist and isn’t tainted by association with the National Party).

Of course, it all depends on how strong the field is. A stronger Mana candidate might cannabilise the Maori Party vote and Jack Tautokai McDonald (assuming he stands again) is well placed to increase his share of the vote. It’s too early to call, but I think Te Tai Hauauru remains winnable for the Maori Party.

The Greens are rising?

The beneficiary might not be Mana or Labour, but the Greens. Mana could be perceived as too close (and partly responsible for) the toxicity in Maori politics. Labour is stable, but associated with the foreshore and seabed era. The same is not true of the Greens.

The Greens are now an accepted part of Maori political discourse. The Treaty is at the heart of the party and its policy is aimed at equality. After 173 years of inequality, Maori are hungry for structural change and the equality that the Greens promote.

The party affirmed its commitment to Maori in the Ikaroa-Rawhiti belection and Metiria Turei has been a consistent and prominent voice on Maori issues. If Maori voters are shopping around for a replacement, the Greens are the best alternative. The Greens are rising? 

The Maori seats: surveying the field

Via RNZ:

A kuia affiliated to Ngai Tuhoe suggests a member of the tribe should stand for Parliament.

Harata Williams - who lives in Auckland - raised the idea in passing while discussing the electoral roll options for Maori.

Ms Williams considers Tuhoe leader Tamati Kruger would be a good candidate.

It’s that time. Candidates are dipping their toes in the water and throwing their hats in the ring. A year and a bit out from the next election, here’s how the field is looking:

Te Tai Tokerau

Mana: Hone Harawira (certainty)
Maori Party: none
Labour: Kelvin Davis (maybe). There’s another name floating around the rumour circuit - one that most Maori will recognise - but I’ll wait for that person to confirm or deny their intention.

Tamaki Makaurau 

Mana: Too early to say
Maori: Pita Sharples (a near certainty)
Labour: Shane Jones (a high chance)


Hauraki-Waikato

Mana: Angeline Greensill (a veteran in the seat, it’s unclear whether she’ll stand again)
Maori: Tuku Morgan (it’s on the record that he wants the Maori Party presidency, the next step is the HW seat)
Labour: Nanaia Mahuta (a more than even chance of standing. On the one hand, she’s out of favour in many Labour circles and busy caring for her new born. On the other hand, she's embedded in the seat and does't look ready to pass it on)


Waiariki

Mana: Annette Sykes (unless she stands in Tamaki-Makaurau or the (possible) eighth electorate)
Maori: Te Ururoa Flavell (a strong possibility, provided the party offers him a clear path to the leadership. If not, a less than even chance of standing).
Labour: still looking for a suitable candidate.


Ikaroa-Rawhiti 

Mana: no one with a realistic chance
Maori: Na Rongowhakaata Raihania (a strong chance. A former candidate and one of the more impressive ones).
Labour: Parekura Horomia (if Parekura doesn’t find an appropriate successor, expect to see him give it one last go)


Te Tai Hauauru

Mana: Too early to say, potentially Misty Harrison
Maori: Rahui Katene has announced her intention to take the seat. Kaapua Smith is also mentioned.
Labour: The rumour circuit is running hot here too, but I’m not going to name names. It’s unlikely that Soraya Peke-Mason will stand again.

Te Tai Tonga

Mana: too early to say
Maori: Rahui Katene is the default candidate, but she appears more interested in Te Tai Hauauru.
Labour Rino Tirikatene (certainty)


Eighth seat 

Mana: Annette Sykes (potentially), Willie Jackson (potentially), Kereama Pene (potentially), Clinton Dearlove (potentially).
Maori: ?
Labour: another prominent name is doing the rounds here too. Again, I’ll hold back on naming that person.

The Greens

To demonstrate the Green's commitment to kaupapa Maori politics, Metiria Turei should consider standing in the (possible) eighth seat. That'd be a candidacy I'd support and one that could open the field. In the other electorates, Dora Langsbury and Jack McDonald have form from the last election and should consider another run. 

Other names

Moana Maniapoto is, apparently, positioning herself for a run (with Labour). People have mentioned Maria Bargh, but in a "I wish Maria Bargh was standing" way rather than "Maria Bargh wants to stand". Veronica Tawhai, an academic at Massey University, is also mentioned as a possible candidate for Mana. Meng Foon is a common name, but it's unclear whether he'd want to stand, let alone have a shot at an electorate. Marama Davidson would make an outstanding candidate too, just saying. 

General comments

The momentum is with Labour. The Maori electorate appears to be reverting to its default setting - strong Labour. Mana is in a lull, the Maori Party is dominating Maori political discourse for all the wrong reasons and the Greens - despite having well developed Maori policy and strong Maori faces - are not seen to be as committed to kaupapa Maori politics in the way that Labour, Mana and the Maori Party are. 

On Tariana Turia's retirement

A few comments on Tariana Turia’s decision to retire:

• Te Tai Hauauru isn't wide open - yet. Turia retains a loyal following and has, I think, the mana to anoint a successor. On the other hand, 2017 will be anyone's election. Unless Turia’s successor solidifies her base, boundary changes and a strong field might weaken the Maori Party hold on the seat. It’s worth remembering that their share of the party vote has declined from 31% in 2005 to 21% in 2011. Assuming that 2014 will be a four-way contest in the Maori seats (Lab v Green v Mana v Maori), the downward trend will continue. 

• Rahui Katene now has an opening. Rahui is based in Porirua (one of the electorate’s major population areas) and has campaigning experience and an experienced campaign team. As much as Katene wants Te Tai Tonga, that electorate’s staying red for the foreseeable future. Katene will also fulfill the constitutional requirement that there be both a male and female leader. 

• Turia’s legacy is not whanau ora. The program, in its current form, will not survive a change of government. Turia’s legacy is the Maori Party itself and the normalisation of kaupapa Maori politics. The Maori Party are not and never were a radical party. Their approach to governing, rather than looking to overthrow or remould the system, was to insert Maori into the governing and business classes. The party achieved that. The Iwi Leaders Group are now a power structure in NZ society, government has and is devolving some power to iwi (think Whanau Ora and Charter Schools) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People lends international recognition to tangata whenua. 

• On the other hand, Maori unemployment is double the national rate, wages are stagnant, schools are not “demonstrating sufficient commitment to ensuring the progress and achievement of Māori students” and Maori spend $5b more than we earn. On the issues that matter to most Maori, the needle hasn't moved. 

• Not to take anything away from Tariana Turia and her achievements. She deserves an enjoyable and prosperous retirement.

John Tamihere: National MP for Waitakere

You read that right: John Tamihere is eyeing up the wrong party. Let’s list his positions:

• Supports asset sales 
• Supports charter schools 
• Opposes marriage equality 
• Has attacked welfarism and advocated for the privatisation of welfare delivery 

First of all, let me be clear about a few things; I like John Tamihere, I think he's an outstanding communicator, a strong advocate for urban Maori and I’d welcome his return. However, he’s a poor fit for Labour 2012. Tamihere’s economic liberalism and social conservatism will sit awkwardly with Labour MPs and members. I struggle to see how Tamihere can reconcile his values and beliefs with Labour values and policies. As one example, in 2010 Tamihere rejected class politics writing that:

The large number of so-called working class people have now migrated to the middle class. As a consequence, describing your politics in a class way is no longer sustainable.

Well, this may have held true under Clinton’s America, Blair and Brown’s Britain and Clark’s New Zealand, but following the global economic downturn the left is tilting back towards class politics. Barack Obama, and to a greater extent Ed Miliband, are staking their re-election on class politics. Obama’s strategy in, for example, Ohio is aimed squarely at winning “blue collar workers” (what we call the working class). Miliband’s strategy is aimed at amplifying class tensions and painting the Conservatives as governing for their own class. If the economic situation in New Zealand worsens, the safe bet is that Labour will follow suit and pivot towards the working class. This would further marginalise Tamihere. However, as an identity politician Tamihere can find common ground with some of his colleagues. He sits well with Labour on Treaty and Maori issues. Having said that, that’s where it ends.

In any event, it’s all academic. Even if Tamihere were a lefty liberal Carmel Sepuloni has the Waitakere branch stitched up, Nanaia Mahuta has rejected his return (and I’m not surprised why) and David Shearer appears lukewarm. If Tamihere cannot win the support of Labour’s West Auckland branches he will need to win the support of the Maori caucus and David Shearer to ensure he receives a winnable list position. Unlikely.

Another route to return for Tamihere is Tamaki Makaurau. But, again, that’s a poor fit. Not because he won’t or can’t win, but because Willie Jackson will want that seat if he decides to stand. However, if Auckland becomes two separate Maori electorates then both could stand; Tamihere in the electorate that incorporates West Auckland and Jackson in the electorate that incorporates South Auckland. What, you ask, happens if West and South Auckland form part of the same electorate? Well, then one of either Tamihere or Jackson would have to stand down or it’s back to aiming for Waitakere or a list position. Whatever way you look at it, Tamihere’s route to return will be very, very rough.

UPDATE: Tamihere gave an excellent interview this morning. He rejected "Rogernomics", read neoliberlism, and spoke of a need to "regrow activism" and change New Zealand's macro economic settings. A clear tilt to the left and an attempt to reconcile his views with the views of the Labour Party.