Editorial: Shifting ideas of our nationhood

Kiwis are articulating their idea of what nationalism means and examining the shifting frontiers of our country's realm, says Mark Story.

A good debate refines society, New Zealand poet Brian Turner once told me.

Concerning the concurrent flag and amalgamation debates, I'd suggest he's right and wrong respectively.

The Flag Consideration Panel (FCP) and its final four flags have copped a fair towelling. They've been described variously as too "aunty", too sporty, too British, not British enough, too flippant, too formal, too floral and my favourite, too "flaggy".

Undoubtedly the 12-strong panel must envy those whose job it was in 1902 to come up with a (our incumbent) flag (incidentally our third national flag). In the early 1900s the Shaky Isles was all about Empire; the then version of the panel had a simple, enviable brief.

Today's task is more complex. There are infinitely more strands to our notion of nationhood. Postmodern theory hasn't helped of course, whereby all such notions are considered arbitrary.

But this is where Turner's claim rings true; Kiwis are articulating their idea of what nationalism means and examining the shifting frontiers of our country's realm, Government and people. Or to steal a line from Turner's moving poem Toi-toi and Tussock, we're talking about "what makes us, us". That window doesn't open often.

This panel needs very thick skin, given everyone these days, apparently, is a designer. But again, the public buy-in and healthy engagement stands in appreciable contrast to the amalgamation melee.

For reasons unknown, agitating about nationalism has been a refining, constructive exercise - while tossing up issues of regionalism has awakened the Neanderthal within.