The bill seeks to of the Treaty of Waitangi 鈥� established by decades of case law and 鈥� and instead enshrine new principles in law.
But the bill goes deeper than that, and touches on delicate but fundamental questions of what it means to be a New Zealander.
In the heated debate since the bill鈥檚 introduction, two ideas of national identity come head to head. And the implications for social cohesion and the quality of democratic debate are serious.
Equal and democratic vs bicultural nation
For the first few decades of colonial settlement, New Zealand鈥檚 identity was contained within an imperial one. The colony aspired to be a 鈥溾��. It was only from the 1950s that European New Zealanders began to develop a distinct identity.
笔腻keh膩 national identity was constructed around ideas of political and economic egalitarianism. These emphasised hard work and social mobility, and portrayed New Zealand as a 鈥渓and of opportunity鈥� or a 鈥溾��.
But these notions of the 鈥渆qual and democratic鈥� nation excluded M膩ori and perpetuated a monocultural vision of New Zealand. In fact, for M膩ori, the process of colonisation was anything but an egalitarian experience.
Not only did the loss of ancestral land 鈥� through forceful confiscations and the introduction of private property laws 鈥� fuel , but M膩ori were also denied the political rights promised to them in the .
Grievances over cultural assimilation, historical injustices and political self-determination galvanised a growing M膩ori protest movement. In the 1970s and 1980s, governments responded by creating the Waitangi Tribunal and by fostering a bicultural understanding of New Zealand national identity.
Since then, this shift towards greater biculturalism has happened on several levels: weaving M膩ori culture and language into the fabric of the nation, educating the public about the Waitangi Tribunal鈥檚 role in addressing historical wrongs, and promoting the Treaty as the main symbol of Aotearoa-New Zealandness.
Recently published show the bicultural understanding of national identity has taken root among younger generations: 85.4% of those aged 18 to 34 agree that 鈥淢膩ori culture helps to define New Zealand in positive ways鈥�, compared to 63.1% of people aged 65 and over.
Similarly, the younger generation is more likely (59.4%) to accept that 鈥渨e as a nation have a responsibility to see that due settlement is offered to M膩ori in compensation for past injustices鈥� than the older generation (37.8%).
The threat of culture wars
The Treaty Principles Bill magnifies the differences between these two different ideas of New Zealand national identity.
Seymour says 鈥渢he Treaty must be consistent with a liberal democracy and give equal rights to each person that has to live in this country鈥�. As such, the bill aligns with the 鈥渆qual and democratic鈥� image of New Zealandness.
What is more, by implicitly framing the Treaty as a governance agreement, rather than a partnership between M膩ori and the Crown, the bill challenges the very interpretation of the Treaty underpinning the bicultural vision of the nation.
New Zealand has previously experienced the kind of divisions so-called culture wars thrive on, for example in public debates about the or .
But the Treaty Principles Bill threatens to inflame a battle over national identity, deepening those divisions and reinforcing them through overlapping generational differences.
As the sociologist , American-style culture wars, which have , have the potential to 鈥渂reak democracy鈥�.
Not only do they exacerbate a sense of 鈥渦s versus them,鈥� but they also narrow political discourse. The focus shifts towards emotionally laden, symbolic disagreements, away from real social and economic issues.
Bicultural egalitarianism
At one level, avoiding a culture war escalation requires holding accountable those politicians who engage in divisive rhetoric. But it might also involve reducing tensions by emphasising shared values across the two interpretations of New Zealand identity.
One possible way to do this is to stretch the idea of egalitarianism 鈥� which is central to the image of the 鈥渆qual and democratic鈥� nation 鈥� beyond its usual meaning of equality of opportunity.
If we expand its definition to include equality of outcome, the bicultural commitment to provide financial reparations as a means to improve the economic situation of M膩ori 鈥� which 鈥� fits the 鈥渆qual and democratic鈥� vision.
We could also broaden egalitarianism to mean 鈥渆pistemic鈥� equality, which stresses the importance of extending equal value to diverse ways of seeing and knowing about the world.
This could help develop a more inclusive narrative of national identity that combines notions of egalitarianism with biculturalism 鈥� manifested, for example, in bicultural governance arrangements , a M膩ori worldview.
, Associate Professor of Political Science,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .
