GUEST BLOG: Geoff Fischer – What is rangatiratanga?
“All New Zealanders have tino rangatiratanga, the right to self-determine…” writes the ACT Party leader David Seymour. Seymour evidently believes that this right to self-determine extends to the right to self-determine the meaning of documents such as the Treaty of Waitangi and words such as “rangatiratanga”. He is mistaken of course. In particular he is wrong about “rangatiratanga” which he defines as “self-determination”. In fact, “self-determination” is a concept close to “mana motuhake” while “rangatiratanga” is equivalent to “sovereignty”.
We know this by reference to nineteenth century Maori texts. Take Te Paipera Tapu Ruka 3:1 “Na i te tekau ma rima o nga tau o te rangatiratanga o Taipiria Hiha, i a Ponotia Pirato e kawana ana i Huria…”. This translates into English as “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate governed Judea…” Caesar was Emperor of Rome and his “reign” (rangatiratanga) marked the period of his sovereignty. Pontius Pilate was appointed by Caesar to govern (“e kawana ana”) a province of the empire, Judea, and therefore had only limited delegated authority. In case of uncertainty, the kawana, Pontius Pilate, was obliged to seek a ruling from Caesar who was was sovereign (rangatira).
Now look at a second text, the opening words of “Te Karakia O Te Atua”:
“E tō mātou Matua i te rangi
Kia tapu tou Ingoa
Kia tae mai tou rangatiratanga
Kia meatia tau e pai ai
ki runga i te whenua,
kia rite ano ki to te rangi….”
which translates into English as
“Our parent in the spiritual realm,
May your name be sanctified,
May your ruler-ship arrive,
May your will be done
in the world
as in the spiritual realm…”.
In this karakia “rangatiratanga” refers to the rule of the supreme being, “to matou Matua”, Ihoa o nga mano, who has absolute authority over humankind.
So in te reo Maori “rangatiratanga” means “sovereignty”, “absolute authority” or “ruler-ship”. A sovereign is one who has the power to make law. In the colonialist system King Charles III is sovereign and every bill passed into law by the New Zealand parliament requires the royal assent (given on the King’s behalf by his representative the Governor-General of New Zealand). Caesar who was emperor or rangatira over the Roman Empire had the same right to determine Roman law. Because there can be only one law in a given space, there can be only one sovereign. However a sovereign may delegate the right to make law in certain areas. For example, within the colonialist system parliament is delegated to draft laws for the nation and local councils are delegated to make law (“by-law” or “town law”) for their local area. Divine sovereignty and temporal sovereignty can also sit alongside each other, one “ki runga i te rangi” and the other “ki runga i te whenua” so that individuals may consider themselves to be subject to both. However as Ihu Karaiti also said “Kahore he tangata e pono te mahi ki nga rangatira tokorua”. (“No one can faithfully serve two sovereign masters”) Ultimately in any given jurisdiction each of us can only have one rangatira and there can be only one rangatiratanga to which we make ourselves subject.
Let us return then to David Seymour’s claim that “All New Zealanders have tino rangatiratanga…”. How true is that? Do individuals have the right to make law for themselves? The fact is that they are not permitted to do so (the Crown courts routinely dismiss the arguments of those who claim to be “sovereign citizens”), and reasonable people would not wish to have the right to do just as they please. David Seymour said we have a right to self-determine, but that right is not all encompassing. In the sphere of rulership and law we are limited to choosing which rangatira to follow and to which rangatiratanga and tikanga we shall be subject. And that right to choose rangatira and rangatiratanga is the very right which David Seymour is seeking to deny us. Through the Treaty Principles Bill he wishes to impose the sovereignty of the British Crown and to nullify rangatiratanga Maori which is embodied in such institutions as the Kingitanga and the Whakaminenga, thus removing New Zealanders right to choose.
There are different forms of rangatiratanga. The rangatiratanga of Ihoa o nga mano is different to the sovereignty of Caesar and rangatiratanga Maori takes a different form to the “sovereignty” of the British colonial regime. So in order to consciously choose between colonialism and rangatiratanga Maori, we need to understand the differences between them.
We know that in 1835 rangatiratanga Maori was present in the form of Te Whakaminenga, the “Confederation of Tribes”. Over the past weeks we have seen the Whakaminenga flag flying alongside, above and below the Rangatiratanga flag. The general concept of rangatiratanga Maori goes hand in hand with its specific form, Te Whakaminenga, and that explains why we have not one but two national flags in Aotearoa (as well as many hapu and iwi flags).
The content of rangatiratanga is found in the principles or tikanga which are drawn from traditional and current practice on marae, but it can also be informed by karaipiture tapu (holy scripture) in which the rangatiratanga principle features prominently, and from the workings of parliaments and popular assemblies in other jurisdictions, even including the colonialist regime.
This last suggestion may be controversial to some. How could the practice of rangatiratanga be informed by the protocols of a colonialist institution? The answer is that there are certain elements of democratic practice which are universal and therefore to be found within a broad range of societies and jurisdictions. The New Zealand parliament is based on the British model which evolved over many centuries and which follows democratic principles in certain essential aspects.
The key difference between Westminster “democracy” and rangatiratanga is that rangatiratanga applies democratic principles at all levels, whereas under the Westminster system democracy primarily is contained within the house of parliament itself, and the way that politics operates within parliament is very different to the way that it operates outside of parliament.
The 120, more or less, members of parliament are distinguished by the fact that their names are publicly known, their decisions are on record, they are free to choose their own leaders within parliament and they are free to alter that choice at any time. The rise of the party system, and more recently the “waka jumping” legislation has compromised that principle of parliamentary democracy without entirely annulling it. That is to say, while a member may be elected as National or Labour and so on, a member has the right to defect to another party or to become an independent, and we have seen many such examples even under the rules of the misnamed “Electoral Integrity Amendment”. Members of parliament are not of the anonymous mass who tick a box in the secrecy of a polling booth, and then disappear from the political system for the three year term of parliament. Members of Parliament all have the right to speak, each in their turn, and without interruption. Their words are recorded, and when they vote in parliament, their vote is also recorded. Throughout their office they retain the right to change their political allegiance (ignoring for the moment their allegiance to the British sovereign which is not freely given and cannot be withdrawn). At every moment in their careers they have the right to follow their own principles (or pragmatic interests as the case may be) without being beholden to the dictates of any other individual, faction or party. On the other hand, parliamentary leaders have the right and arguably the duty to disown a member who has disgraced the party. Within parliament we thus have a relationship of mutual responsibility between party leaders and followers. Each party has a caucus in which leaders and followers can engage in debate and formulation of policy. Everyone has an active voice. A caucus, which functions as a constituency within parliament, can be of any size, from one member to, in theory at least, the whole of the house. Ultimately, within each caucus followers are accountable to their leaders, and leaders are also responsible for and to their followers.
This sounds ideal, yet parliamentary politics can be a shabby business. The blame for that lies not so much in the processes of parliament per se as in the processes by which members are elected. These processes are almost guaranteed to ensure that the most opportunistic citizens will be the ones elected to office. Election as a contest turns politics into an acrimonious zero-sum game. Instead of making their own choices and respecting the choices of others, as in rangatiratanga Maori, in the western system of government the voters are encouraged to impose their own choice on others and must be resigned to having another’s choice imposed upon themselves. This method of contested election is the antithesis of individual choice rather than its essence and it corrupts the entire political process.
The contrast between the processes within parliament, and the process by which members are elected to parliament, which is to say the contrast between the rights of members of parliament and the rights of the ordinary citizen, could not be more stark. The ordinary voter remains anonymous. Their only role in the system is to hand over their personal rights and responsibilities as a citizen to another (the politician). The voter typically takes no personal responsibility for that decision, and the elected member has no system of accountability to the electors. The voter is a member of a constituency, which is equivalent to a caucus within parliament, but unlike a caucus the constituency is an artificial entity, an empty vessel which cannot function as a forum of discussion or an instrument of accountability. Moreover, unlike the member of parliament, a voter cannot change their affiliation or re-visit a decision. The system is designed to separate the politician who has rights from the anonymous, undifferentiated and essentially powerless mass of voters, and the inevitable consequence is apathy and disillusionment among the voters coupled with arrogance and corruption among the politicians.
The institution of the secret ballot in 1871 helped to de-politicize the mass of the population, while the change to a mixed member proportional system in 1996 moved more political power away from the constituencies and into the hands of party hierarchies. The professionalization of politics, the decline of mass political parties, the increasing role of the mass “media” (which has become not just a medium for the transfer of information, but almost the sole intermediary between politicians and public) and the rise of professional political lobbying have all contributed to the decline of democracy built on the Westminster model. The common characteristic of all these changes has been the disconnection of the public from the political process and the growing presumption among politicians and journalists that their role is to manage the public in order to gain or retain control over the state, rather than to advance the people’s interests through the state. Based on what they have learned from academic economists and political scientists, professional politicians believe they know what they need to do to manage a capitalist economy and the state under whose aegis that economy functions. Their main challenge is to persuade the public that they are indeed best fitted to do what has to be done. Their role is to listen to the economists and political scientists and then to persuade the public. They are no longer there to represent the public and they could hardly do that if they chose because there is no longer an organic connection between the politicians and the voters. (An exception is the Maori seats in the house, which are a special case because Maori constituencies are still effectively linked back to the people through marae, whanau, hapu and iwi organisations).
Concurrently with the erosion of the democratic underpinnings of the Westminster system, parliament itself has come into disrepute through the behavior of members (disgraceful personal misconduct, blatant egoism, political opportunism and so on) and the persistent failure of elected governments to deliver on their promises and the public expectation of a fair, just and harmonious society. This leads many to suggest that the problem is in parliament itself, and that the solution is to elect more honest politicians and parties of greater political integrity. But if the results of the electoral process are so consistently unsatisfactory, it stands to reason that there must be a problem with the way that politicians are elected to office. It could be argued that the low standards among politicians reflect declining moral standards in society as a whole, and that people who are themselves self-interested and ethically free and easy feel more comfortable electing politicians who are not unlike themselves. That argument has some merit, yet there is still a very large section of the population who are honest, compassionate and caring and whose values are not reflected in the house of representatives. In the end we come down to the fact that the crisis of democracy centres around the process of election and the nature of the interface, or lack thereof, between politicians and the public.
Legitimate criticisms may be made of Parliament itself. For example many of the arcane rituals, trappings and paraphernalia of parliament serve no purpose except to emphasize the colonialist origins of the New Zealand political system. The roles of the Governor-General and the monarch in parliament are also incongruent with the workings of a democracy. However, aside from such valid criticisms the parliament itself functions as an open, accountable participatory democracy while the system by which members are elected to parliament is secretive, massively subject to manipulation by vested interests, and lacks any effective system of accountability.
On the other hand, rangatiratanga Maori (which I will simply call rangatiratanga from here on) allows every citizen the same kind of rights and responsibilities that are given to members of parliament under the Westminster system. The right to be a functioning part of a constituency of their own choosing, equivalent to a caucus in parliament. The right to hold their leaders to account. The political responsibility for the consequences of their own choices and decisions. The right to withdraw or transfer their allegiance at any time of their choosing. It is the democratic institutions of parliament given to the population at large. It is the restoration of popular democracy.
Under the Westminster system the operations of parliament itself are fluid. Changes can occur by the day, hence the saying “A week is a long time in politics” but by contrast any decisions made by the people at an election once made are set in stone and irrevocable. In the short to medium term there is no room allowed to the ordinary voter for second thoughts, switching alliances, new initiatives or adaptation to changed circumstances. (If a week is a long time in politics then three years is an eternity). Rangatiratanga, however, extends to the entire political system the flexibility and adaptability which is currently only found within the walls of parliament. At the same time, because rangatiratanga is based on a system of continuous election and does not follow a three or four year electoral cycle it ensures that when changes are made they tend to be less abrupt, and the system is inherently more stable. Ultimately, within rangatiratanga at any point people can use their individual authority to promote change or stability according to their best judgement, but they can not use their own authority to over-rule that of their neighbours. In rangatiratanga there is never a point at which one group can say to another, in the infamous words of the late Sir Michael Cullen, “We won. You lost. Eat that”.
When we look closer, we see that not only was rangatiratanga extant in 1835, but it is also found today on every well-run marae, hapu and iwi. It was not learned from the British. Rather there are certain fundamental principles of democracy which every human society holds in common, but which have become degraded and perverted over time in what are called “developed” societies where democracy has become the preserve of a privileged “elite”. So in New Zealand under the Westminster system we have a functioning democracy for 120 people more or less. It would be a simple matter to apply those principles to the entire population of Aotearoa through universal rangatiratanga.
Rangatiratanga re-establishes the principle of personal agency in a way which is much more meaningful that that prescribed by David Seymour. It means that people, all people, are taken seriously. It recognises the individual’s own chosen community of interest as a constituency, whether that be iwi, hapu or some other social network. It establishes mutual rights and responsibilities for all and it is open and transparent. Being open it is immune to electoral fraud or even suspicions or allegations of fraud. Being continuous, the process cannot be postponed or cancelled, and cannot be easily rorted or distorted through provision of misinformation.
It may be controversial to link the concept of rangatiratanga to Te Paipera Tapu but there is a sound reason for doing this. In the period since 1814 rangatiratanga has had religious connotations. In fact in the period between 1814 and 1862 rangatiratanga evolved under various influences to become a sophisticated and progressive political concept which was in full flower before being brutally suppressed by the British invasions of 1862-3. In scripture the word “rangatiratanga” denotes both secular (temporal) and spiritual forms of government. In the context of secular governments, scripture clearly indicates the supremacy of “rangatiratanga” over “kawanatanga” which has crucial implications for the correct interpretation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In the other context “rangatiratanga” is the word used for the system of divine rule, and so the scriptures came to inform our understanding of rangatiratanga as a system of government subject to both moral standards and practical rules. Rangatiratanga is illustrated in the relationship between Jesus Christ and his disciples. It has a subtlety and depth that is missing from the Westminster system of government. For example the text “You did not choose me, but I chose you..” may at first glance seem to be the antithesis of democracy but it speaks an important truth. Even though we know that the disciples did in fact choose to follow Ihu Karaiti as their teacher and leader, the text emphasizes the mutuality of such choices, and the special responsibility of the one who has the leadership in a relationship. No Westminster politician could say to a voter “Kahore koutou i whiriwhiri i ahau, engari naku koutou i whiriwhiri…” (“You did not choose me, but I chose you..”) because that would imply a profound responsibility by the one choosing to the one who was chosen. So the principle of mutuality is an essential element of rangatiratanga. By comparison the relationship between a politician and a voter is so tenuous as to be almost non-existent.
In the modern form of the European electoral system using the secret ballot, the elected representative does not know who his followers or supporters are, and so is effectively disengaged from them. This is intentional, and is claimed to be a virtue of the system, but it is problematic. If a representative is not actually engaging with those who elected him or her (that is those who cast their votes in favour of the representative) then who is he or she engaging with? Ideally it might be an entire constituency including those who did not vote in favour, but in reality the politician is more often engaging with donors, lobbyists, special interest groups, courtiers and “influencers” who are all “real people” with names, voices and resources at their disposal. Politicians may pay lip service to the unknown anonymous mass, “the silent majority”, but in reality it is the donors and lobbyists who call the tune, rather than those unknown masses who might or might not have voted for a given politician.
Democracy in the west has been degraded as a result of profound social, technological and political changes over the past one and a half centuries but technology also provides us with the means to institute rangatiratanga as a universal form of democracy. There is no longer any compelling reason to have constituencies of equal size. There is no longer any reason to prevent people from choosing their own constituency. There is no longer any reason why leaders should not be in open dialogue with their constituents and immediately responsible to them. In other words there is no reason why rangatiratanga Maori should not be extended to all people of the motu, except for the fact that vested interests profit from the present disgraceful state of affairs in Westminster politics.
The words of the karakia “Kia tae mai tou rangatiratanga … ki runga i te whenua, kia rite ano ki to te rangi….” express a simple reality. If rangatiratanga is to descend from the abstract realm of te rangi into the earthly realm of te whenua it must assume a concrete form. For us in Aotearoa, and for the foreseeable future, that form would be Te Whakaminenga, the Confederation of Aotearoa.
Geoff Fischer is a forestry worker residing at Manaia, Te Tara-o-te-ika a-Maui.
My East Coast wife doesn’t recognize the “Northern Confederacy of Chiefs” , nor that king in England or the queen in Waikato. Am I wrong in thinking that the basic unit of social organization in Maori society was hapu. And that the reference to rangatiratanga in the Treaty refers to the rights of hapu to organize their own affairs.
The pitfalls and problems for true democracy that you outline in our current parliamentary system stem from the increasing size and complexity of modern society. This applies equally to maori with the usurpation of power from hapu to the colonial creation that Iwi has become.
A second point bothers me. Why? Why? Why, did you have to bring that little jumped up trouble making Abrahamic god of the desert into things. You have your own gods, perfectly good gods, stick to them. The essence of maoridom should be your relationship with your gods. Don’t allow yourself to be colonized by accepting that demented upstart.
Ngati Porou, Ngati Kahungungu or whatever hapu your wife belongs to, and a whole lot more besides, may not recognize the Kingitanga or the Whakaminenga. But all come together in times of crisis, and most have a level of respect for these “Northern” or “Waikato” institutions. Even the colonialists should be entitled to follow their King Charles. However they are not entitled to impose him on the rest of us. Hapu can organise their own affairs, but if we have an Aotearoa it needs some institution for allowing us all to work together effectively. That is why I see Confederation as the way forward.
Rangatiratanga answers the problem of Iwi that are considered non-representative, because hapu and hapu-like constituencies become the base unit of the political system. Iwi level leaders then become accountable to hapu, and hapu leaders are accountable to the members of that hapu.
As for religion. This will be a sore point for many TDB readers. Yet Maori adopted and adapted Christian faith through Pai marire, Hahi Mihinare, Ringatu, Ratana and so on. Religious faith has a complex relationship to colonisation. The original texts of Christianity long predate British colonialism and are fundamentally anti-colonialist. It is what it is, and it has been largely though not entirely constructive.
You can choose not to be Christian and to follow any or no religion. However it is difficult to understand the concept of rangatiratanga without reference to the nineteenth century Maori texts which used the word, and these seem to have been largely of a religious nature. If you can point me to other secular texts I would gladly employ them.
Geoff; You and I are on the same page in wanting devolution from the Westminster governance system. Be interesting how to structure, sell and then implement the confederation concept to ALL New Zealanders.
Confederation is the answer; but will Maori enable this evolution of non tribal entities to share the space currently occupied solely by Maori?
Pity your most excellent vision is spoilt by a denigrating racist cartoon. I hope that was not your doing. For you don’t build a confederation of equally like minded people by denigrating sections of the populace you wish to sway to your tune.
The images attached to my article were chosen by another. There is a valid point to be made about negative reactions to the haka, but having said that I would not talk about “fragile white people” myself. I avoid the terms “white people” and “white settler…” which have taken on derogatory connotations, and whether people are “white” or not is beside the point. Our argument is with colonialism and not with any ethnic group.
This is a stunning article, while my almost total lack of understanding of the Maori language obviously limits my understanding of your words I can understand the spiritual dimensions you use and fully agree with them. We are in the unfortunate position where organized religion has almost completely lost the concept leaders are responsible to their followers which is expressed in politics by only ever getting the best government that money can buy which never serves most of the population.
I have noticed the change in meaning of various English words over the last 60 years so it validates my faith that a Maori language translation of the bible can be used to explain the meaning of words used in the treaty and help expose the false claims by David Seymour.