| The death of Queen Elizabeth and the ascension to the throne of King Charles has reignited the debate on whether New Zealand should become a republic. But despite strong arguments in favour of shifting to a republic, such a move is unlikely to occur anytime soon.
What will stop the republican movement gaining ground and winning over a majority of New Zealanders to ditch the monarchy? The answer is Treaty politics.
The shift to a republic cannot be separated from this now-dominant aspect of New Zealand politics. To argue for a shift to a republic in 2022 is to enter into a debate about the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Māori language version, Te Tiriti O Waitangi in our constitutional framework. These are very fraught debates, which have the potential to divide a nation.
A Republic is possible
Technically, a shift to a republic could be quite straightforward in terms of the Treaty. After all the British Crown no longer actually has Treaty responsibilities – those are now with the New Zealand Government. A move to a republic could, with a simple change of law, shift the formal Treaty partnership to the new head of state.
As Geoffrey Palmer said this week, “The fact that you get a new head of state wouldn’t affect at all the obligations in relation to the treaty… I know some people think it would, but it wouldn’t.”
There has long been a myth that the Treaty of Waitangi would be diminished by the demise of the monarchy in this country. Countless scholars show that this concern is not warranted. And surveys show that Māori are keener on becoming a republic than others.
New constitutional debates will be part of republicanism
However, constitutional debates have evolved significantly in this country, and now centre on the Treaty and indigenous rights. Witness recent governments’ incorporation of the Treaty into governing arrangements. The whole design of the Three Waters reform programme is centrally based on the role of iwi, for example.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The concept of co-governance has become an innovation that politicians are seeking to insert into more institutions. And many other proposals in the Labour Government’s He Puapua document will at some stage need to be discussed in terms of constitutional changes.
So any debate about shifting to a republic will automatically involve important consideration of how the Treaty and indigenous rights will be recognised and elevated in a new constitution. Māori aspirations will therefore reshape the republican movement – because in 2022 and onwards you can no longer deal with constitutional reform such as republicanism without a very serious debate about radical constitutional change involving tangata whenua.
Don McKinnon was reported this week as believing that “Māori would not agree to a republic without seeking concessions from the Government.” He told journalist Richard Harman, “Māori signed the treaty with the British Crown, and I would think there’d be a significant number of Māori who say, well, we’re not prepared to give up being a realm until we see far more equality within New Zealand today.” Similarly, law professor Andrew Geddis is quoted today saying a shift to a republic would require some sort of “reconceptualisation of Te Tiriti”.
The big republican debate will therefore be about placing the Treaty at the centre of the new constitution. And this could involve significant changes to the whole political system, including Parliament.
As political commentator and former MP Liz Gordon writes this week, “Māori will, if the matter arises, be asking for significantly more say in the governance of the nation. The Treaty of Waitangi, itself a kind of balance of powers, will need to be rewritten to provide shared kawanatanga and a new model of tino rangatiratanga.” And she is optimistic that this can be achieved, especially if such a model arises from Te Ao Māori itself: “if Māori can come together and propose a form of leadership that shares esteem and powers and takes us forward, such proposals would be unstoppable.”
For some in the republican movement these discussions about the role of the Treaty and Māori will be seen as a barrier to change, as debates that might once have simply been about whether New Zealand deserves to have a head of state determined by birth in aristocratic family in a far-off country, will instead be about more charged ethnicity and race issues.
Republicanism as a culture war
In this new environment, it might prove more difficult to win over support for a republic. While many New Zealanders, both Māori and pakeha, will be keen on ditching King Charles as our head of state, they might wince at the proposals for who replaces him, and what comes with that republicanism.
Although the current leaders of the Labour and National parties might profess to be republicans, they will run a mile from being associated with culture wars. Both Jacinda Ardern and Christopher Luxon will be keen to distances themselves from the fallout from what could be an ugly and divisive debate on New Zealand’s constitutional future. This isn’t simply about being cowardly and unwilling to front something they believe in, it’s more profound than that – not wanting to see the country descend into acrimonious debate with the potential to divide even their own parties and supporters.
When it comes down to it, there’s probably only a small proportion of New Zealand society who are fervent monarchists or republicans. People generally don’t feel that strongly about who our head of state is. In fact, a recent survey showed that only 18% of the public even know who occupies this position. But a much larger proportion of society cares about issues of racial injustice and radical reforms. It’s no surprise that polls show a large majority of New Zealanders don’t support the Government’s Three Waters reforms – probably largely due to the perception that they are a race-based reform giving large elements of control to unelected iwi.
Should the republican movement pursue “minimalist republicanism” or “Treaty republicanism”?
If New Zealand moves to a republic, there are many elements of a new constitution that might be easily agreed upon. The new head of state might be given a title such as Rangatira or Ariki.
But the constitutional reforms that could go along with the transition might be more radical. Therefore, the New Zealand Republican Movement has something of a dilemma in how it pursues change.
Does it adopt a “minimalist republican” reform movement, in which basic change is advocated – simply making the current office of Governor General the new head of state, with a reformed Parliamentary appointment process? Or does it look to more widespread constitutional reform, especially that which seeks to fulfill the aspirations of those demanding a more Treaty-based political system.
The former strategy might be more successful in terms of achieving a republic. The latter is more in touch with the Zeitgeist and will help get groups such as iwi leaders, Te Pati Māori and the Greens on side. But this option also threatens to open a real can of worms.
The republican debates we had in the 1980s and 1990s are long over. Back then it was about “minimalist republicanism” – just getting rid of the monarchy. It’s now about “Treaty-based republicanism”.
Most commentators haven’t caught up with this new reality. Much of the constitutional debate over the last few days has been about whether our new head of state would be a president, elected or appointed by Parliament, and how to avoid political capture of the new role.
These are all good discussions to have. But in the end, they miss the bigger questions – which will be around the Treaty, and what role a new republic would have for Māori, and how we embody a multi-ethnic society in constitutional arrangements.
There has been a sense in which New Zealand has been sleepwalking towards a republic, or that we are already a “de facto republic”. Many feel that a final shift to make a republic official is just a matter of launching a new campaign, referendum, or piece of legislation. But the recent Māori political and constitutional renaissance changes all of that. Republicans will have to grapple with demands for more than just a change of a law to replace the King with the Governor General.
For a good illustration of this change, it’s worth noting that in 2017 Te Pati Māori strongly opposed New Zealand becoming a republic but, in 2022, they are leading the charge. This year they have a new policy: “Te Pāti Māori are calling to remove the British royal family as head of state, and move Aotearoa to a Te Tiriti o Waitangi based nation.” And as part of this, they want bigger republican changes, including a Māori Parliament which would operate alongside the present one.
Will this version of republicanism be a goer? Probably not for quite a while yet. |
Too soon, but no harm in getting the korero going. Maybe in 40 to 50 years time? Kiwis need to learn and comprehend NZ/AO history first and would be well to learn the same of UK history too, in terms of monarchy. That would be a good starting place to comprehend where we were so to agree where we are now and what we want in future. NZ/AO is too ignorant at the moment, but talking about it will change that, eventually.
Fuck the repugnant republic! Bring on the thwarts!
We’d be bought and pimped by jonky’s hoards to the highest yank bidder before you could say “Praise Jesus and pass the Pukeko’s. ”
RNZ.
‘Five Eyes in Queenstown: Top spies jet in for gathering’
‘Top spies’ What wank. What would their mothers think.
Mum
” What did you do today Billy? ”
Wee Billy Snoop-Sneak.
“Oh, well, I spied on people doing naughty things by our values.”
Mum
“Ugh! Yuk Billy! I’m calling to book a post birth abortion! That’ll go down a treat in Texas.”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/474753/five-eyes-in-queenstown-top-spies-jet-in-for-gathering
Nationalism is an important subject that I commented months ago on this blog. Maori have been characterized by non-Maori as ethno-nationalist! Is that correct? Or is that an opinion? Can Pakeha call themselves nationalist aswell?? Some Pakeha that I’ve spoken too online only, said that they built this country have more dead bones buried in our soil and were benevolent to Maori who should be thankful for existing? (remembering elitist Bob Jones rant) They also were of the belief that they are indigenous because of the aforementioned even though their ancestors are recent arrivals.
IMO, Pakeha can call themselves indigenous till pigs fly it doesn’t bother me, what frustrating is this insistence that Maori are getting special privileges even though statistics says otherwise. For example the the 3 waters issue that claims of giving a minority more right to water? It turns out to be true that the minority they were talking about were the farmers and not Maori even though Maori water rights are enshrined in our founding document the TOW.
Do I believe NZ is ready to become a republican? Not quite yet IMO as there’s a lot of water under the bridge that need to be addressed which is mainly up to the dominant group who need to make compromises if we are to remain a peaceful nation.
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/racism-or-satire-how-to-tell-the-difference/
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/now-that-ive-got-your-attention
http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/
“the perception that they (3 Waters reforms) are a race-based reform giving large elements of control to unelected iwi.”
Perception, you say?
Political Roundup: Why New Zealand’s shift to a republic will be thwarted:
what the …? I think drop ‘th’ leaving ‘warted’. I believe that makes my view plain.
personally ok with republic but with the caveat that given the state of the NZ judiciary and police incompetence we need a higher court that isn’t full of no mark NZ old school tie grifters competing to give the lightest sentence to sex offenders