30 June 2025
Dialogue with a Tiriti activist
The comments of the Tiriti activist are in italics. My responses are in normal type.
> Is Westminster democracy in England a colonialist system?
> My answer would be ‘not’.
I agree, it is not colonialist in England, although let's just call it the "Westminster system". Whether it is democratic (whether it really functions to express the popular will) is a moot point. Within itself, that is within the House of Parliament, many democratic principles are applied. For example there is an open ballot (everyone must know how an MP votes and the identity of every MP is known), continuous election (through "the confidence of the House"), and self-determined non-uniform constituencies (party caucuses) . The very same rangatiratanga democratic principles that should apply in society as a whole, but do not. There is also the problem of an having an unelected head of state (King Charles) which is no way consistent with democracy.
Additional Note: If parliament uses sound democratic principles in its internal processes, which could be emulated in the popular sphere to the advantage of democracy, then why is unseemly, petty and divisive behavior so prevalent within the parliament?
In answer I would say that the appearance may be deceptive. Parliamentarians of all parties have surprisingly good and close relationships within parliament itself, which are not always evident to the general public. There are many cross party personal friendships (as well as rivalries and personality conflicts within parties) and the impulse to "bipartisan" politics is strongly felt within the major parties. Bipartisan policy was traditionally associated with foreign policy (which was managed by the British government until 1947) but now de facto extends to a range of economic and social policies, such as superannuation policy. Political antagonisms are generated by the need to compete for the popular vote and therefore are a product of the external electoral process. I believe that radical reform at the popular level, giving genuine agency to the people, would have a major beneficial impact at the representative level.
>What makes OUR Westminster system colonial is the manner in which it is imposed - through colonisation.
Correct.
> If tomorrow the Westminster system ... to not have power over iwi/hapu ... it would stop being a colonial system.
It would stop being colonialist in relation to iwi Maori, and that would be a huge step forward, but assuming the state continued to claim authority over the remaining 80% of the population, it would still be a colonialist entity.
> Matike Mai offers us a path to implement this distinction between rangatiratanga and kawanatanga, allowing each to determine their governing systems, without imposing on each other, with aim for high collaboration and intersection.
Except that the distinction between rangatiratanga is not properly understood by all. Rangatiratanga is sovereign overarching authority. Kawanatanga is a subordinate authority. We know this. The evidence from early nineteenth century texts is incontrovertible.
> In most cases marrying into a hapu doesn't actually makes someone part of that hapu, usually only the shared kids.
"In most cases" presumes a knowledge that I lack. Sufficient to say that a marriage partner can be accepted into the hapu. There is a kind of logic to that, in the idea that man and wife are one flesh, and that the mother of members of the hapu should naturally herself be a member of the hapu. But it all comes down to individual cases.
> Can a random group of maori decide they are hapu?
They can. We often address a group of people who are not strictly speaking whanaunga as "whanau". A gang is made up of a random group of maori who decide they are hapu. So is a church like Te Hahi Ratana. I am not condoning gangs. But rangatiratanga would give them a place as of right in society. They might then take a more positive direction.
> Can whanau (relating to a specific hapu) at some point decide they are a hapu in its own right?
Yes, hapu and iwi evolve. New hapu spring up out of iwi over time. It can sometimes be a messy business, but that is life.
> Are you suggesting that all people living in Aotearoa would go through a process of becoming groups of self-identified constituencies (called hapu?)?
Yes, they could do, though not necessarily called hapu. Any other name would do, such as roopu, hapori, community etc.
> Assuming some of these will be constituencies without any maori, some mixed, some would remain only maori?
Presumably. I could even say "certainly".
> Assuming there was such process, without whakapapa, these would not actually be similar to traditional hapu, right?
Yes and no. They would be similar in the sense that they fostered a sense of community among people who might otherwise be isolated individuals in a neo-liberal social wasteland.
> Must these constituencies be related to specific territory?
No.
> If new hapu/constituencies have no territory and resources, what is their actual position for agency, self-determination and autonomy?
Agency, self-determination and autonomy come from the self, and the community, not from the whenua. They are not denied to people without power, possessions or land. Sure, whenua provides a solid basis for identity. The whenua keeps many whanau and hapu together when they might otherwise tear apart. Even the very smallest bit of land, an acre or half an acre, or a quarter acre can fill that purpose to a degree. When you don't have land you have to find that basis for community in human qualities of love, respect, kindness, empathy, generosity, compassion and solidarity.
> Current districts would have the power to split or amalgamate based on internal decisions, and this would determine their population and territory.
"Sovereign territory" is hard and fast. It allows no overlapping. Otherwise there is much overlapping. The rohe of a hapu overlaps with the territories of a sovereign state, district council, regional council, street gang and so forth. I am not thinking specifically in terms of any of those structures.
> I guess, a key question is the type of power, if at all, held by a central body/ Confederated assembly?
Yes, that would be Te Whakaminenga.
If you want two levels of government, central government and local government based on a local territory, then you would have to allow each individual to function politically as part of both a locally based group and a nationally based group. So take the local situation of TCDC. Matai Whetu, Manaia, and Harataunga each constitute a community. They could each have a rangatira who brings a number of proxy votes to the council table. Those votes should be on public record and should be revocable and transferable at will. Clearly the number of actual rangatira sitting around the physical table would be limited, so small groups may need to pass their proxies to a rangatira with a larger body of followers. At the moment, when different hapu or marae in the district want to work together to a common end, as I understand it the process is informal. People weigh up the interests and concerns of all parties, and their relative numbers, and try to find a common way forwards. That works, but a formalized process could work better.
> I tend to imagine that without whakapapa we are actually talking about something quite different than any current expression of rangatiratanga.
Under a universalised system of rangatiratanga some (I am thinking among Maori in particular) would choose to participate on the basis of whakapapa, which is the basis of the original rangatiratanga system. Therefore the system would effortlessly accommodate Maori or, if you prefer, Maori would successfully accommodate non-Maori. It would accommodate Maori better than the present system of geographical Maori seats and Maori wards and it would for the first time give real agency to non-Maori and in a way that encouraged collaboration over conflict.
> I'm not saying any of this is good or bad. I'm just trying to imagine what we are actually talking about, and whether I would agree we can call it rangatiratanga.
Rangatiratanga would be the Maori word for it. Any other word in another language might do.
> But only if it incorporates a power of the people model of continuous elections? (I'm not sure how that works??)
Continuous election means that you give your mandate to a representative for an indefinite period, but can withdraw or transfer it at any time of your choosing. So you give your proxy vote to X, who holds 999 other proxy votes. Now X has 1000 proxies. If X does well in your eyes, he or she might remain your representative for decades. If X does not do well, you withdraw your proxy, so X is now back to 999 proxies. It is a system which is both stable and responsive, because change does not happen overnight. If X is doing badly, his number of proxies diminishes slowly over time. If he has wisdom, he takes note and mends his ways (that is the system being responsive, which also helps to keep it stable). If he lacks wisdom to change, eventually he ends up being replaced. You don't need elections or election campaigns. You don't need opinion polls. The system handles it all without fuss or drama or madness. There are no sudden turn arounds in policy. The people have real power over the representatives. An informal version of this system worked in the small units of Maori society in the nineteenth century when everything was face-to-face. A formalized system could work now using digital technology. This would have to be imposed. If you come to the larger table claiming to represent a certain number of people, you have to be able to verify that claim.
> There would not be a universal bottom line for wellbeing outcomes across the country, nor universal basic rights. Unless a confederated assembly has some powers.
> An overarching system of environmental protection or resource management?
> A system for negotiating impacts of resource use on neighbouring hapu and districts.
> International relations.
Like you, I guess, I would prefer a constitution which guaranteed human rights, protected the environment and discouraged participation in war. We would have to persuade others of the wisdom of such measures. However under rangatiratanga we would not be subject to the present situation, where a government is acting contrary to the opinion of the people in all these areas. People would have real power over their government. Frankly, the coalition government would either be long gone, or would have mended its ways, if it was subject to the democratic disciplines of rangatiratanga.
> I'm interested in what you mean by your description of rangatiratanga and where you draw these ideas from. These are not descriptions I have encountered before.
My description of rangatiratanga comes from a cursory study of what existed in the early nineteenth century, how things work on the marae today, and what can be gleaned from old texts. From that some key principles emerge:
1. People are born into a hapu.
2. Hapu may differ greatly in size
3. Hapu always have a common interest (whakapapa) which is the basis of unity
4. There is an element of choice to their remaining in that hapu. They can leave either as individuals or as a whanau and establish a new hapu.
5. The hapu also has a rarely exercised power to expel individuals from the hapu.
6. The hapu can accept new entrants into the hapu as it chooses.
7. A leader or rangatira is chosen by consensus and that choice is for no fixed term. It may be for life, or it may be until circumstances change. Anyone who disagrees with the choice of rangatira has the option of Point 2 above.
8. The decision making processes within a hapu take place on the marae and are visible to every member of the hapu ("Ideally").
To universalize these principles we have to make Point 1 non-obligatory but otherwise I believe that they provide a solid basis for rangatiratanga as a universal system of government under a confederation aka Te Whakaminenga. Coming back to the word rangatiratanga, it is clear that it means a sovereign system of governance. However the word is used in te reo to signify both worldly sovereignty and the "te rangatiratanga o te Atua". In the second sense there is much discussion of the qualities of a godly rangatiratanga, being truthfulness, justice, love, compassion, generosity, unity etc (te pono, te aroha, te manaakitanga, kotahitanga). So the concept of rangatiratanga must be advanced on both levels. Not just as a better way of structuring a diverse society, but also as a way of bringing out the best in the human being.