“I feel like we’ve been in a constant state of conflict for five years and actually Māori do this all the time - and it’s really fucked that this has become part of our identity as Māori, to fight and to be constantly fighting. But for Māori, it is also part of your inherent responsibility to your community and your whenua, and so you do these things, because that’s what you are called to do.” - SOUL campaigner Qiane Matata-Sipu
The Ihumātao settlement was not a Treaty settlement. Therefore, the outcome was neither a symptom of, nor a microcosm of, the Treaty process. This was an independent example that raises a question: how do Māori campaigners achieve restoration of their whenua?
Māori people face considerable barriers in achieving democratic outcomes. Māori are a minority. Only seven electorates represent Māori exclusively, alongside sixty-four more representing everybody, mainly Pākehā. Moreover, Māori have historically tended to disengage from traditional Western-minster democracy at higher rates than Pākehā.
Could they persuade a coalition of a majority of voters? That is an astonishing distance to cover. Consider the ease with which a major party or bloc, like National or motorists, can outflank them by bringing in a few more Kiwis to make up a majority. Labour accomplished that while seizing the foreshore & seabed. That is just one recent example of racism in this country. Politicians have farmed careers off of resentment of Treaty settlements for decades. National took off by an astonishing 17% in the polls after Don Brash’s Orewa speech. Many voters are likely to buy that Māori deserve less, not more.
What about protest? Critics, notably ACT, invalidate this option as threatening facets of law and order like private property rights. First, maintaining "law and order" is a time-honoured cliche in the politics of racism. The esteemed Richard Nixon pushed that approach against the 1960s civil rights movement. Secondly, sticking to debate and democracy are just two approaches in a vibrant discussion about how to achieve change. Voters tend to be older, whiter, wealthier, more educated. Protest doesn’t suit them, but works well for other groups. Thirdly, when protest is unacceptably forceful and a violation of law and rights, yet the forcible evictions and land seizures protests mobilise against remain protected by the law, there is a blatant double standard.
One wrong doesn't right another, but we can trust protest is no threat to anything more than some assets and wealth at most. Why? The fourth and final reason protest is acceptable is that law enforcement stands clearly on one side: against protest.
Even as that agency opposed protestors, the government formally adopted neutrality, both during negotiations, and in the outcome. Remember the status quo: most Māori suffer consequences from less land, less wealth, less assets than Pākehā. Standing by the status quo de facto takes the side of those with wealth and assets and land, who benefit, against the bulk of Māori. Blaming a government for negligence and inaction is perfectly acceptable.
Ardern herself failed to go to Ihumātao. Such an action, contrary to some fears, would not be taking the side of the protestors. Nothing could have stopped her assessing the situation for herself, meeting with both sides, and then affirming Fletcher’s ownership and use of the land, while minimising the loss of Māori support through her politicking. As usual, she declined to upset the status quo.
The Ihumātao outcome still bodes well. Settlements can happen outside the laborious, never-ending Treaty process. Compromises can be reached which satisfy all parties as much as possible and avoid both sides, us vs. them disputes deepening. Many Māori may be unsatisfied, but such cautiousness means the settlement is unlikely to be rolled back. Opponents can hardly justify seizing the land back when that’s their exact criticism of SOUL.
Note that the deal announcement promised four different types of land use. Can this government deliver on that? They haven’t so far on housing. Beyond the land, the importance of the Ihumātao incident lies in demonstrating to outsiders that Māori are not a monolith. There are many views, factions, actors, within the Māori political and protest scene. Ihumātao proves Māori politics is not a one-track story of “pure” indigineous rights like land reclamation and self-determination. Ihumātao, like every issue in Māori politics, deserves full consideration for its implications for housing, free speech, "law and order" rhetoric, policing approaches and more.
Comments