Bad Reason for a Bad Idea

Garth George broaches the issue of Maori seats in local government and comes to this conclusion:

“But now, after pondering the question at length and reading all the arguments for and against, I believe that the Maori seats in Parliament should stay for as long as Maori want them, and that at least two seats on the new Auckland Super City council should be set aside for Maori.

“I am persuaded that the concept of “one nation, one people”, on which the argument for abolition or non-provision of Maori seats is invariably based, is a myth.

“We are not one nation, one people, any more than the British are one nation, one people.”

While I agree that the idea that we are “one nation” is likely to be a myth, it strikes me that this is a terrible reason to use to validate ethnically-based seats. Democracy works when the majority determine the direction of the country, a small fact that John Key appears to be waking up to incredibly slowly and Helen Clark completely disregarded. Democracy ceases to work when a minority can over-ride the will of the majority. The basic exception to these two statements is where the will of the majority includes the removal of basic human rights from the minority. This is most certainly not the case with the Maori minority.

Ethnically-based seats subvert democratic principles in an effort to be “fair”. There is a reason why democracy cannot be “fair” (meaning: even handed with all minorities).  That reason is the problem of definition of a minority. We have problems defining groups such as “Maori” and “Asian” and ill-defined groups make a mockery of ethnically defined groups in government. Worse still, if one group has proportional representation, any group may seek equal representation: Women (at least well-defined!); Christians (almost as many definitions as people in New Zealand); Farmers (very sub-dividable) and white, heterosexual males (probably the least represented group in the world). Where does it end?

It is also no use giving the stock reply of “those groups do not have provision in the treaty – Maori do”. This argument assumes that the only way for Maori to be represented in parliament (or local government) is by providing ethnically-based seats. But the principles of the treaty are not met in most businesses by seats on the board, they are met by consultation with Maori cultural representatives. Why should government be any different? As I pointed out in a previous post, the reason why Maori are being taken seriously in parliament is not because they have seats, but because Key is willing to engage with them. In the long run only this attitude will make any difference to effective Maori representation.

The ethnically diverse nations of Europe and the US do not provide ethnically-targeted seats for their minorities and yet their minorities are well-represented. It is only in small, backward New Zealand that we still think that apartheid is a pretty cool idea.

Related posts: