A Tale of Two Maori

An Old Conflict in New Clothes is Welcome Indeed

The Maori Party is supposed to be a broad-tent party, albeit for Maori. It is becoming clearer with each passing day that the tent pegs need to be positioned much, much further apart if it is going to be able to accommodate the divisions now emerging.

These divisions are not new, and they are not particularly or uniquely Maori. We have seen them before. The ideology of socialism--the belief that all means of production, both capital and labour, belong to society as the original and rightful owner--has been around since Karl Marx plied his hand as an Hegelian economist. Socialists rapidly split into two camps: Fabians and revolutionaries. It was a split over tactics and timeframes.

Revolutionary socialists believed that the social ownership of everything--even the soul of man--can only be achieved by revolution, by radical, even total, change. The time frame had to be now--within the current generation. Fabian socialists believed that the social ownership of everything could only be achieved gradually, by thousands of slight iterations where private (non-socially owned) property was gradually removed, and placed under public ownership. The time frame was intergenerational. The tactic was legislating and regulating the socialist state into de-facto existence.

Fabians have been far more successful and influential to the point where both left and right political parties throughout the West argue only over relative degrees of the social ownership of property. They are all Fabians now.

The Maori Party is a socialist party. True: it is distinct in the peculiar racial tinge to its socialism. But it incessantly seeks a redistribution of capital in favour of Maori. But it is being riven by disputes between Fabian Maori socialists and revolutionary Maori socialists. Turia, Sharples and their loyal MP's are Fabians. They are gradualists. They doff the cap to radical doctrines like Maori being installed as the co-governors of the country, but use it merely to extort and argue for "more" to be distributed to Maori. They are patient. They are prepared to see future generations achieve much, much more than they ever have. Passing first this law, then this clause, then this measure, following by that regulation is their modus operandi.

Harawira, however, is a revolutionary socialist. He wants co-sovereignty now. He wants it by radical change. Gradual, incremental changes are compromises which challenge his integrity. Like all revolutionaries it is all or nothing, and it has to be now. Harawira is supported by swathes of urban, educated Maori. They have been educated in the ideology of Maori as Treaty-partner and co-sovereign of the nation. They see the Treaty not as a vassal treaty, but as a contract between co-equals and partners. To them the current situation is firstly unjust. Secondly, they trace all problems confronting Maori to the denial of their co-sovereign status and authority over the nation. Maori will never be truly human, truly "born again" until they get their mana as "big dog" restored. The longer it is allowed to continue, the harder it gets to address the problems. The system cannot be changed gradually; only revolutionary change will achieve Maori power and control over the capital and resources of the country. For these Maori, like the Fabian Maori, it is all about ownership, being sovereign over capital and resources. The dispute is tactical. The argument is over how to achieve control and how much time it will take.

The somnambulant electorate sees Turia and Sharples et al. as pretty much mainstream. They hear echoes of their own Fabian principles and regard them as "one of us". As one very senior National party person said, "Pita Sharples is a class act." In other words, Sharples is seen as being at the centre of the political spectrum. It is why he and his colleagues can work with either the centre left party (Labour) or the centre right party (National), and why they can work with the Maori Party. It is why both major parties can work with the Maori Party. They are all in the broad Fabian socialist tent.

But Harawira and his supporters are not. They are the revolutionary and radical socialists. Co-regency now--which is to say, Maori control over the means of production and labour in New Zealand now--is their creed. "Our way or the highway" is their modus operandi. You see this clearly in the split within Maoridom over the Foreshore and Seabed proposals. Turia argues, "It's the best we can do now." Her Maori revolutionary opponents oppose it because it is "all or nothing, now" and since the proposed legislation is not "all" it is nothing and must not be signed.

The Christian will want none of this. Socialism is an overt and deliberate thumbing the nose at the eighth and tenth commandments. Therefore, it is an ideology directly opposed to God Himself, since it champions the breaking of His holy law. Therefore, not only is socialism (whether Fabian or revolutionary) intrinsically evil, unjust, and the perpetrator of great harm to men, it will inevitably collapse. It is doing great damage to New Zealand, and has done over seventy years. Its result, if allowed to control and continue, will be a "failed state". However, Christians are like Fabians in that they are gradualists. Their perspective stretches out to a thousand generations. But they are also revolutionaries--far more revolutionary than the socialists--in that they look for every man to become a new creature in Christ.

Meanwhile we look at the ructions taking place within the Maori Party and see nothing new there. It is the century old struggle of socialist against socialist, Fabian against revolutionary. Long may it continue. Infighting makes both weaker. Obstacles to socialism are our friend.