Juliet Golightly: Guaranteeing minorities a voice is democracy in action

Opinion

Wayne Ryburn argues that Maori seats should be excluded from government at local and national levels because they are not in keeping with New Zealand democratic traditions, will mean an end to the nation state and are a vestige of colonial paternalism anachronistic in a multicultural society.

Paternalism is where a dominant person (in this case the Crown) does something concerning a less powerful person (in this case Maori under majority-rules democracy), that purports to be in their best interests in a way that demeans them.

When Maori feel demeaned by having dedicated seats I feel confident they will let Mr Ryburn and the rest of the country know.

Maori are quite capable of recognising their own self-interest and they always have been.

Obviously, they do not feel demeaned by having dedicated seats. That is why they seek to retain them.

I find the view that Maori seats should be abolished now that New Zealand is a multicultural society strange. We have always been a multicultural society.

Pre-European society contained many different cultures (all Maori). After European colonisation, new immigrants came from many different countries and religions. Not everyone was an Anglican from England. Nothing about our current degree of multiculturalism requires political change.

Adapting Westminster-style democracy to our unique social situation by including Maori seats promoted social harmony, order and stability in a way that nothing else could have.

This is the New Zealand democratic tradition, and not the 19th century English version claimed by Mr Ryburn.

The purpose of democracy is to provide good government. Good government requires the voices of minorities to be heard, especially where they carry the burden of legitimate grievances. Otherwise they disengage from the political process. Nobody wants that.

We should not discard what has worked for us in favour of a slavish adherence to some ideological form of democracy that has never been. Different countries adopt different forms of democracy. Ours has been largely successful.

I can't understand Mr Ryburn's view that the retention of Maori seats at national level or their inclusion in the Auckland Super City will mean an end to the nation state and a return to feudalism. This kind of inflammatory, alarmist language does not serve us.

All Maori seats have done is to provide a mechanism for Maori to engage in government in a meaningful way. This is a good thing, isn't it?

Mr Ryburn points to Article Three of the Treaty as guaranteeing Maori the same rights as British subjects, not more rights. In this, he continues a long tradition of selectively taking out the parts of the Treaty that serve the interests of the majority (being non-Maori) and ignoring the rest.

In fact, the Treaty guarantees many rights to Maori that are not expressly given to British subjects - preservation of lands, forests, fisheries, etc.

Our country has made mistakes in its dealings with Maori, and the Crown has spent the past 20-odd years apologising for some of those.

Nevertheless, we have done some things right. That is why we have the high degree of social cohesion that Mr Ryburn points to in his argument that dedicated representation is no longer needed.

I argue the reverse. We should continue to engage with Maori in those ways that have worked for us in the past, whether or not this conforms to Mr Ryburn's ideology of democracy, because this is in the best interest of all New Zealanders. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

* Juliet Golightly describes herself as a Whangarei mother.