If Te Tiriti were truly at the center of power, then no one should be excluded from questioning it, regardless of the governing model. Below a hypothetical example of how it would work.
I would argue the original spirit of the treaty as implemented would look something like this.
The treaty I would argue was largely an agreement of convenience. The Māori can formalise their trade with the British, the British can formalise their presence in Aotearoa/NZ.
In light of this, commerce and trade are the way forward. Māori get to harness the economic opportunities of being part of the Anglo world, Pakeha can simply continue with existing economic opportunities.
This does require maintaining some form of Anglo constitutional arrangement. The problem with the current system is simply that the central government has too much power/ we’re too dependent on them. There are real opportunities here for iwi groups to fill that gap and provide more locally appropriate solutions.
I get what you’re saying about the Treaty as an agreement of convenience—Māori formalizing trade with the British, and the British securing their presence. So in your view, the best path forward is commerce and trade, with Māori leveraging the economic advantages of being part of the Anglo world, while Pākehā continue as usual?
I’m curious—when you say this requires maintaining some form of Anglo constitutional arrangement, are you suggesting keeping democracy, capitalism, and private property intact but shifting power more toward iwi-level governance? On what areas then? Or would iwi structures need to take on a more autonomous economic role within the existing system, rather than replacing it?
Also, when you say central government has too much power, are you advocating for full regional autonomy (iwi-led governance at a local level with minimal Crown involvement) or just decentralizing more economic functions to iwi?
Keen to hear more on how you see that balance playing out in practice.
Yes I would keep democracy capitalism and private property- all underpinnings of the Anglo world. I would essentially see iwi as having a similar function to charities of the ‘big society’ of Victorian England mixed with decentralised local governance. Helping to create a more ‘organic’ style of governance (which yes will likely include a more ‘tikanga’ style of governance).
The key issue for me, whether we are taking about central government, local government or any kind of governance is it must be governance by consent. A fundamental principle of the Anglo political system, and not all inconsistent I would argue with a Māori worldview.
Kia ora Erina, thanks for reading and commenting. I would love to hear any and all of your thoughts on this. Will also wait to see if we get any engagement and we can go from there :)
Hi Nat. I’ve wondered about this all day. I appreciate the creativity behind your invitation. It's definitely an intriguing scenario. (And what a triumph last week’s article was!)
Where I get to though is that the thought experiment is too far out.
I think the key constraint that would have to be loosened would be to propose that the bulk of New Zealanders become sold on the legitimacy of the Treaty as our foundational constitutional document. I don’t see it.
Starting without that, every hypothetical avenue becomes closed off imo.
John, it’s my point exactly. You are picking up what I am putting down. Too many far fetched things that won’t happen, need to happen. I’m not sure where to from here, but I wanted to make that point as best I could as respectfully as I could
I should clarify I support the Matike Mai model of three levels; which could have Kawanatanga elected under the current system, Rangatiratanga structured according to tikanga and Maori aspirations, and Co-governance agreed by consensus between those two groups. I haven't read Matiki Mai's thinking so they may have a better concept.
Kia ora Alan, thanks for reading and commenting. I loved how you explained how there is no clear boundary between Māori and others, so well articulated.
I agree that a dual system where neoliberalism coexists with collectivism is an oxymoron, especially given their legacy, robustness and complexity. There’s no clean line between Māori and non-Māori, as you point out, which makes governance models based on separation challenging to implement in practice, which is my point. Like I told John, my point was to show that too many things that won’t happen would need to happen to make it work. So where do we go from here?
That said, your point about Rangatiratanga having real scope in key areas like health, housing, education, and justice is exactly the kind of practical approach I think we need to be talking about. If we take Matike Mai’s vision seriously, then the question becomes: how much autonomy does Rangatiratanga need to be meaningful? Would it mean iwi and hapū having independent tax collection, policy-setting powers, or does it sit within a broader national framework?
I appreciate your clear stance that all earners should contribute to the tax system and funding should be based on need. That’s one of the hardest practical questions—how do we balance tino rangatiratanga with national redistribution? If funding allocation is still controlled at a national level, does that limit the autonomy of Rangatiratanga, or is that just a necessary reality of running a modern state?
And I fully agree—the current trajectory of neoliberalism and wealth inequality is unsustainable. If we don’t rethink how power and resources are distributed, we risk ending up with a system that collapses under its own weight. Your support for the Matike Mai three-sphere model makes a lot of sense—do you think it’s politically viable, or does implementing it require a fundamental shift in public and political will? Keen to hear more of your thoughts, especially once you get a chance to read the thinking behind Matike Mai! Nat
I can't imagine a dual system of neoliberalism on the one hand and collectivism on the other. There is no clear boundary between Maori and others - we have intermarried and integrated since before 1840 and many of us have a foot either side of the line.
Tom makes some good points and I agree that the Westminster system and capitalism are here to stay (unless there is some kind of violent revolution followed by totalitarian rule), however I believe there is scope for Rangatiratanga in many areas where Maori are currently disadvantaged. Such as health, housing, education and justice.
All earners should continue to contribute to the tax system, and funding allocated to services according to need. If taxes need to increase, so be it.
Whenua Maori should be managed according to tikanga, and if that means a different set of rules, so be it.
The neoliberal / libertarian doctrine with increasing wealth and income inequality is a recipe for failure of the state. We don't need to look far to find current examples of how it can go so wrong.
Ka whakautu ahau: Implode local authorities into the regional councils. Change constitution so these rohe (regions) do not devolve their authority to the central state (crown). Cut ties with Britain. Basically this is the Swiss model - they don’t devolve authority to the EU. Ko enei aku whakaro (these are my thoughts). E noho ra Fred
Kia ora Fred, thanks for reading and commenting. So, if I understand correctly, you’re suggesting a regionalized model where authority sits at the rohe (regional) level rather than being devolved to a central state—similar to how Switzerland operates independently from the EU, which is a semi-direct democratic federal republic. And I assume cutting ties with Britain would mean a fully independent Aotearoa, no longer tied to the Crown? - So would we have a President? In Switzerland is a President of Council states. Like a Republic of some type?
I’m curious—in this model, do we still retain democracy, capitalism, and private property? Or would governance at the regional level also shift to something more aligned with tino rangatiratanga? Does each rohe determine its own approach, or would there be a shared framework for decision-making, taxation, and land ownership? Who governs? Iwi?
Keen to hear more about how you see it working in practice.
I'm not an expert but my understanding is the that role of president in Switzerland is rotated around the cantons (regions). I think I can remember that ACT once sent a delegation to have a look at their system - not that I'm an ACT voter. Switzerland is capitalist, a democracy and a big user of referenda, and according to my father (my grandparents retired there) very boring. I do know that when all the EU sent peacekeepers to Afghanistan to help the Americans the Swiss didn't (smart move). Each canton has a different education system and even different languages but somehow they make it work. Most years Switzerland has the highest rating for managing their environment in Europe and as a country they are well off. He aha te mea i konei? What would it mean here? A fresh start, a chance to decide for ourselves what bi-cultural or multi-culture means. You can make the case that "The treaty is a fraud": signed at the point of a gun by a military empire and chiefs who needed guns for the own survival. Under the treaty Maaori experienced loss of land, language and culture, and I'm not sure if it is still relevant. Kua mutu taku korero, ka kite. Fred
Thanks for sharing this—Switzerland’s model is an interesting one, especially with its regional autonomy, capitalist democracy, and heavy use of referenda. The idea that multiple education systems, languages, and governance styles can coexist within one country is something worth thinking about in an Aotearoa context. Could a regionalized system, where iwi and rohe govern themselves under a broader national framework, be a way forward? And would that require keeping democracy and capitalism, or would something more radical be needed?
Your last point on Te Tiriti being signed under duress is not something I have heard before, but I don’t know too much about the history specifics. If we see it as a colonial tool that ultimately led to land loss, cultural suppression, and systemic disadvantage, then what does that mean for its legitimacy today? Can Te Tiriti still be a foundation for governance if it was never truly honored in the first place? Or does that mean we need a completely fresh start—something new, negotiated on today’s terms? Keen to hear more about how you see that playing out. If the Treaty was abandoned or rewritten, what kind of system would you see working in its place?
At 76 I have long given up expecting a utopian future. But Switzerland is an interesting model. Tonight I put the finished touches to a utopian future for Sinaloa, I’m interested to hear what you think
I appreciate your willingness to venture outside the Overton window here, but I'm not sure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi offers much guidance on how to design a governance model.
I agree that neither "te kawanatanga katoa" nor "te tino rangatiratanga" imply democracy or capitalism, but I can't see that they're inconsistent with them either. I suppose the primary challenge is how to make a system where neither of te tino rangatiratanga and te kawangatanga katoa are subordinate to the other (as opposed to the status quo, where the former exists in the framework of the latter). In such a system we could draw from tikanga Māori, Westminster traditions, and keep or discard democracy and capitalism, but I'm not sure why a dual-system approach would require or preclude any of these options.
The hard part about any dual system is just how to resolve conflicts when they interact, whatever the two systems are. I suppose you're right that we're not ready to grapple with these questions. I wonder if there are any other dual systems (current or historical) we could use as inspiration?
I've seen reference lately to a Peter Thiel quote where he suggests democracy and freedom are incompatible. (So no Democracy, just Capitalism). This blogpost seems to be exploring that notion, albeit in a way that most would assume is antithetical to Thiel's techno-futurist brand of libertarianism.
...which led me down this rabbit hole: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2089533 A dissertation titled: "A Libertarian Framework for Indian Rights". The abstract: "This dissertation outlines a new vision for Indian rights, drawing from the fields of libertarian political philosophy and critical race legal theory. The goal is to develop a framework for federal Indian policy that provides for a true realization of tribal self-determinaion, that maximizes the liberty interests of American Indians, and that promotes lasting economic development in Indian Country." Not sure whether libertarianism has been explored by Indigenous political theorists in Aotearoa NZ.
I would argue the original spirit of the treaty as implemented would look something like this.
The treaty I would argue was largely an agreement of convenience. The Māori can formalise their trade with the British, the British can formalise their presence in Aotearoa/NZ.
In light of this, commerce and trade are the way forward. Māori get to harness the economic opportunities of being part of the Anglo world, Pakeha can simply continue with existing economic opportunities.
This does require maintaining some form of Anglo constitutional arrangement. The problem with the current system is simply that the central government has too much power/ we’re too dependent on them. There are real opportunities here for iwi groups to fill that gap and provide more locally appropriate solutions.
Kia ora Tom, thanks for your comment.
I get what you’re saying about the Treaty as an agreement of convenience—Māori formalizing trade with the British, and the British securing their presence. So in your view, the best path forward is commerce and trade, with Māori leveraging the economic advantages of being part of the Anglo world, while Pākehā continue as usual?
I’m curious—when you say this requires maintaining some form of Anglo constitutional arrangement, are you suggesting keeping democracy, capitalism, and private property intact but shifting power more toward iwi-level governance? On what areas then? Or would iwi structures need to take on a more autonomous economic role within the existing system, rather than replacing it?
Also, when you say central government has too much power, are you advocating for full regional autonomy (iwi-led governance at a local level with minimal Crown involvement) or just decentralizing more economic functions to iwi?
Keen to hear more on how you see that balance playing out in practice.
Nat
Yes I would keep democracy capitalism and private property- all underpinnings of the Anglo world. I would essentially see iwi as having a similar function to charities of the ‘big society’ of Victorian England mixed with decentralised local governance. Helping to create a more ‘organic’ style of governance (which yes will likely include a more ‘tikanga’ style of governance).
The key issue for me, whether we are taking about central government, local government or any kind of governance is it must be governance by consent. A fundamental principle of the Anglo political system, and not all inconsistent I would argue with a Māori worldview.
Love to add to my thinking, thanks for this. Will keep an eye on comments for any experts who respond to your inquiry
Kia ora Erina, thanks for reading and commenting. I would love to hear any and all of your thoughts on this. Will also wait to see if we get any engagement and we can go from there :)
Hi Nat. I’ve wondered about this all day. I appreciate the creativity behind your invitation. It's definitely an intriguing scenario. (And what a triumph last week’s article was!)
Where I get to though is that the thought experiment is too far out.
I think the key constraint that would have to be loosened would be to propose that the bulk of New Zealanders become sold on the legitimacy of the Treaty as our foundational constitutional document. I don’t see it.
Starting without that, every hypothetical avenue becomes closed off imo.
John, it’s my point exactly. You are picking up what I am putting down. Too many far fetched things that won’t happen, need to happen. I’m not sure where to from here, but I wanted to make that point as best I could as respectfully as I could
Well you nailed it!
I should clarify I support the Matike Mai model of three levels; which could have Kawanatanga elected under the current system, Rangatiratanga structured according to tikanga and Maori aspirations, and Co-governance agreed by consensus between those two groups. I haven't read Matiki Mai's thinking so they may have a better concept.
Kia ora Alan, thanks for reading and commenting. I loved how you explained how there is no clear boundary between Māori and others, so well articulated.
I agree that a dual system where neoliberalism coexists with collectivism is an oxymoron, especially given their legacy, robustness and complexity. There’s no clean line between Māori and non-Māori, as you point out, which makes governance models based on separation challenging to implement in practice, which is my point. Like I told John, my point was to show that too many things that won’t happen would need to happen to make it work. So where do we go from here?
That said, your point about Rangatiratanga having real scope in key areas like health, housing, education, and justice is exactly the kind of practical approach I think we need to be talking about. If we take Matike Mai’s vision seriously, then the question becomes: how much autonomy does Rangatiratanga need to be meaningful? Would it mean iwi and hapū having independent tax collection, policy-setting powers, or does it sit within a broader national framework?
I appreciate your clear stance that all earners should contribute to the tax system and funding should be based on need. That’s one of the hardest practical questions—how do we balance tino rangatiratanga with national redistribution? If funding allocation is still controlled at a national level, does that limit the autonomy of Rangatiratanga, or is that just a necessary reality of running a modern state?
And I fully agree—the current trajectory of neoliberalism and wealth inequality is unsustainable. If we don’t rethink how power and resources are distributed, we risk ending up with a system that collapses under its own weight. Your support for the Matike Mai three-sphere model makes a lot of sense—do you think it’s politically viable, or does implementing it require a fundamental shift in public and political will? Keen to hear more of your thoughts, especially once you get a chance to read the thinking behind Matike Mai! Nat
Interesting discussion, thanks Nat.
I can't imagine a dual system of neoliberalism on the one hand and collectivism on the other. There is no clear boundary between Maori and others - we have intermarried and integrated since before 1840 and many of us have a foot either side of the line.
Tom makes some good points and I agree that the Westminster system and capitalism are here to stay (unless there is some kind of violent revolution followed by totalitarian rule), however I believe there is scope for Rangatiratanga in many areas where Maori are currently disadvantaged. Such as health, housing, education and justice.
All earners should continue to contribute to the tax system, and funding allocated to services according to need. If taxes need to increase, so be it.
Whenua Maori should be managed according to tikanga, and if that means a different set of rules, so be it.
The neoliberal / libertarian doctrine with increasing wealth and income inequality is a recipe for failure of the state. We don't need to look far to find current examples of how it can go so wrong.
Ka whakautu ahau: Implode local authorities into the regional councils. Change constitution so these rohe (regions) do not devolve their authority to the central state (crown). Cut ties with Britain. Basically this is the Swiss model - they don’t devolve authority to the EU. Ko enei aku whakaro (these are my thoughts). E noho ra Fred
Kia ora Fred, thanks for reading and commenting. So, if I understand correctly, you’re suggesting a regionalized model where authority sits at the rohe (regional) level rather than being devolved to a central state—similar to how Switzerland operates independently from the EU, which is a semi-direct democratic federal republic. And I assume cutting ties with Britain would mean a fully independent Aotearoa, no longer tied to the Crown? - So would we have a President? In Switzerland is a President of Council states. Like a Republic of some type?
I’m curious—in this model, do we still retain democracy, capitalism, and private property? Or would governance at the regional level also shift to something more aligned with tino rangatiratanga? Does each rohe determine its own approach, or would there be a shared framework for decision-making, taxation, and land ownership? Who governs? Iwi?
Keen to hear more about how you see it working in practice.
E mihi ana,
Nat
I'm not an expert but my understanding is the that role of president in Switzerland is rotated around the cantons (regions). I think I can remember that ACT once sent a delegation to have a look at their system - not that I'm an ACT voter. Switzerland is capitalist, a democracy and a big user of referenda, and according to my father (my grandparents retired there) very boring. I do know that when all the EU sent peacekeepers to Afghanistan to help the Americans the Swiss didn't (smart move). Each canton has a different education system and even different languages but somehow they make it work. Most years Switzerland has the highest rating for managing their environment in Europe and as a country they are well off. He aha te mea i konei? What would it mean here? A fresh start, a chance to decide for ourselves what bi-cultural or multi-culture means. You can make the case that "The treaty is a fraud": signed at the point of a gun by a military empire and chiefs who needed guns for the own survival. Under the treaty Maaori experienced loss of land, language and culture, and I'm not sure if it is still relevant. Kua mutu taku korero, ka kite. Fred
Kia ora Fred,
Thanks for sharing this—Switzerland’s model is an interesting one, especially with its regional autonomy, capitalist democracy, and heavy use of referenda. The idea that multiple education systems, languages, and governance styles can coexist within one country is something worth thinking about in an Aotearoa context. Could a regionalized system, where iwi and rohe govern themselves under a broader national framework, be a way forward? And would that require keeping democracy and capitalism, or would something more radical be needed?
Your last point on Te Tiriti being signed under duress is not something I have heard before, but I don’t know too much about the history specifics. If we see it as a colonial tool that ultimately led to land loss, cultural suppression, and systemic disadvantage, then what does that mean for its legitimacy today? Can Te Tiriti still be a foundation for governance if it was never truly honored in the first place? Or does that mean we need a completely fresh start—something new, negotiated on today’s terms? Keen to hear more about how you see that playing out. If the Treaty was abandoned or rewritten, what kind of system would you see working in its place?
Nat
At 76 I have long given up expecting a utopian future. But Switzerland is an interesting model. Tonight I put the finished touches to a utopian future for Sinaloa, I’m interested to hear what you think
I appreciate your willingness to venture outside the Overton window here, but I'm not sure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi offers much guidance on how to design a governance model.
I agree that neither "te kawanatanga katoa" nor "te tino rangatiratanga" imply democracy or capitalism, but I can't see that they're inconsistent with them either. I suppose the primary challenge is how to make a system where neither of te tino rangatiratanga and te kawangatanga katoa are subordinate to the other (as opposed to the status quo, where the former exists in the framework of the latter). In such a system we could draw from tikanga Māori, Westminster traditions, and keep or discard democracy and capitalism, but I'm not sure why a dual-system approach would require or preclude any of these options.
The hard part about any dual system is just how to resolve conflicts when they interact, whatever the two systems are. I suppose you're right that we're not ready to grapple with these questions. I wonder if there are any other dual systems (current or historical) we could use as inspiration?
I've seen reference lately to a Peter Thiel quote where he suggests democracy and freedom are incompatible. (So no Democracy, just Capitalism). This blogpost seems to be exploring that notion, albeit in a way that most would assume is antithetical to Thiel's techno-futurist brand of libertarianism.
...which led me down this rabbit hole: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2089533 A dissertation titled: "A Libertarian Framework for Indian Rights". The abstract: "This dissertation outlines a new vision for Indian rights, drawing from the fields of libertarian political philosophy and critical race legal theory. The goal is to develop a framework for federal Indian policy that provides for a true realization of tribal self-determinaion, that maximizes the liberty interests of American Indians, and that promotes lasting economic development in Indian Country." Not sure whether libertarianism has been explored by Indigenous political theorists in Aotearoa NZ.