I’m not really commenting too much on the good/bad points of Maori seats, I’m not from NZ ad I really don’t have that right. It’s more a general commentary on democracy and where we cam from. Every democratic system has artifacts like this, whether it be the electoral college in the states, the Hare-Clarke voting system in Tasmania or the split elected/appointed house of lords in the UK, we all run our systems differently. None of which is bad per se, it’s just another step on the road towards building a democracy that truly represents it’s people, and that’s all we could ever hope for really.

PinkyOz.

As I recal there is the option under some circumstances for people (Maori people) to accept Maori justice. In this frame work the Maori King has real power. Importantly, the Maori Queen enjoyed the respect of the British monarchy and the New Zealand Parliament.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1719882.htm

But the arguement is about threats to democracy, and in my experience the largest threat to democracy in New Zealand has come from heavy handed politicians who abused their office to the extent that the public called for a new system. First past the post was chucked out and MMP came in. And the Maori seats had no bearing on that change.

I agreee ntirely. But you’re also wrong about the English monarch; she retains substantial legal powers, even if by convention they are only exercised on the advice of her ministers.

The Maori King doesn’t have even that. Legally, he’s a private citizen. His power (such as it is; they don’t exercise much, though clearly have some influence) comes from his mana, not from the law or constitution.

The fact that such a leader was appointed by Maori confirms absolutely the point that Maori needed to speak as one voice in the protection of their identity. European civilisation created such personages themselves many times in times of need just such as the treaty time. Maori had never faced the need for a unifying leader prior to the European invasion. I should point out that the Queen of England has no real legal power. Tremendous influence, yes, but power, no.

PinkyOz: erritory (in European history at least) is easily the driving force of politics

Sure. And what the Maori seats recognise is alternative, overlaapping Maori forms of territory. Seat boundaries must follow Maori communities of interest (tribes), just as general seat boundaries must follow Pakeha communities of interest. And there’s no reason why the two can’t co-exist; in NZ, we recognise that people have multiple overlapping identities, not just one.

Point well taken. I don’t think much of geographically-based electorates either, but we really have to consider the history there. Territory (in European history at least) is easily the driving force of politics, it’s easy to understand, and ties political movement to the real world. Plus it represents nicely on battlefield plans and electoral maps.

Whatever we think about democracy in general, it’s not that far related from the Monarchies and Despotism that preceded it. It’s an evolutionary step in a ongoing search for the ‘optimal’ form of governance, we don’t give up our past gains ‘Just Because’. It’s all about tinkering and building acceptance (this is why we could consider that we have had no ‘Revolutions’ per se, all human system change is evolutionary, only the scale and execution time changes). In other words, geographic electorates are as much an artifact of our system as the Maori seats system in New Zealand, what we choose to do about it is another thing entirely.

PinkyOz.

Look at it this way: Most indigenous populations are significantly lower than what they would’ve been without European Invasion and Marginalisation, and their cultures (ie, those native to the country in question that generally don’t exist elsewhere) are also at risk as a result of that. And as Idiot/Savant’s comment suggests, I’d tentatively say that maintaining NZ’s respect for Maori land and culture has come out of HAVING the Maroi seats. I suspect also those in Maori seats do feel freer to actually be the voice of that community, when you consider the issues some of the Australian Indigenous MPs and Senators have faced in terms of feeling like they’re letting down the community when they’re stuck in Party political positions (see also the panic going on in the US that Obama’s only going to look after ‘his’ people if he’s elected)

I don’t see the issue with a country’s electoral system acknowledging the particular historical importance and necessity of its indigenous population, particularly when that population has a history of being marginalised and silenced. Which goes to Deborah’s last paragraph, which I think is much more important than “political pragmatism”. It’s about history, and partnership, and the honouring of Treaties (which is a fascinating concept given the string of treaties the US have with their first peoples that have never been delivered on, and Australia’s lack of a treaty at all, which says a lot in itself). And if the only value you can see in that is political pragmatism, then I suppose that’s your view, but that seems a rather narrow view from here.