Editorial: Questions of right and power

The votes were barely counted in the recent Palestine election when Israel and the United States began demanding that the elected Hamas Party recognise "Israel's right to exist". Hamas responded that it recognised Israel's power to exist, but that is not the same thing. Many states have "the might to exist". The right to exist begs deeper questions of the extent to which it satisfies the social and national needs of all those over whom it holds sway. Putting aside Israel's problems, the question is one that all states should ask themselves, especially on their national day.

Not many question their right to exist but we do. It is the question underlying all the debate about the Treaty of Waitangi and all the disturbances over the years on Waitangi Day. New Zealand's right to exist rests on a solemn agreement signed 166 years ago today and the state's efforts to satisfy the descendants of both sides that the deal is working. New Zealand also has the internal might to exist, of course, but we don't celebrate that today. In fact it has been the tactic of seasoned Maori demonstrators at Waitangi to draw police into the kind of confrontation that is designed to suggest the state's legitimacy rests only on might.

It does not, of course. Governments and the Judiciary for a generation now have taken giant steps to honour the terms of the 1840 agreement and recognise the special needs of Maori, not only in social services but, just as important, in the symbols and cultural expression of the state. Much of this progress has been made with too little reference to the wider electorate and it was always vulnerable to a mainstream political leader prepared to tap the well of popular resentment as National's Don Brash did two years ago.

Now, though, it seems possible to conclude the well was wide but shallow. Resentment he tapped had more to do with political correctness than a deep-seated desire to wind back Maori advancement. People were frustrated at the lack of debate and found it refreshing that a leading politician would challenge the excesses of official deference to taniwha and the like. But National's proposal to abolish the Maori seats in Parliament never gained much traction.

Helen Clark's Government quickly adjusted to the mood and Maori realised they were unlikely to make more progress with a mainstream party for the time being. They elected an independent party in four of their seats at the election last year. The Maori Party has used the annual forum at Waitangi this time to begin a discussion that has the potential to give Maori a united voice and a potentially pivotal one in a Parliament of proportional representation. The very process of reaching a consensus through regular assemblies would give Maori a distinct political life that could satisfy their national aspirations better than any deference or recognition from the Government.

One day the Waitangi anniversary will invite a discussion about many more topics of national moment. That will be the day when it is also a national day to mark, as others do, with brass bands and fireworks. Until then we are likely to spend the day in trepidation for what may happen, yet again, at the Treaty grounds. History is alive today as on no other day. We do not talk grandly about it, we have proxy debates about the precise meaning of the Treaty in its two languages and whether Waitangi Day is too divisive and dare national leaders go there this year? The underlying question is always the same: how do we live up to that deal? By striving to do so we find the right to exist as a nation together.