Participatory In Theory Only

With the election having taken place just under a month ago, it is already significantly evident that the Maori Party, being a special interest electoral organisation supposedly committed to specific ideals, would appear to be barely as hardline -- and possibly therefore less politically potent -- than they ought to be given the circumstances that led to the foundation of the party. Ever since Tariana Turia broke away from Labour to form the Maori Party as a result of distinct differences in opinion regarding the foreshore and seabed issue, as well as indeed particularly throughout the election campaign, the Maori Party has prided itself on being "an independent voice for Maori in Parliament" that they claim has long been needed.

In light of the fledgling party's bold confidence and its apparent openness in terms of its policy directives that it has exhibited, it comes as a significant surprise that one now finds the party giving off the impression that they are cunning political wheelers-and-dealers; almost perhaps in a similar vein to Winston Peters. The Maori Party's apparent newfound non-commitment to their core ideology, emphasised as they flirt with the neo-liberal parties that generally choose to take the none-too-frequently-proclaimed-racist "one law for all" stance, is not a promising indicator of a party that is going to put their message forward significantly at all in Parliament. Regardless of the observer's ideology, one can acknowledge that this is a desperate shame for a party that holds such a potentially advantageous status as a result of their image of being the first independent voice that has been present in Parliament for Maori people.


Another aspect of the organisation of the movement that the Maori Party was particularly enthusiastic about from the offset was the notion that it was going to make its decisions according to feedback that it received through what it viewed as a truly democratic system. The party made an early attempt at putting this system to use during the past few days, in the form of a series of hui that were intended to bring forth dialogue from those who voted for the party around the country. The idea was that the Maori Party would select which of the two major parties they would pledge their potentially coalition-forming allegiance to based on the general consensus of opinion that they received from party supporters at these hui. However, it so emerged that the apparent consensus was that the voters don't really understand politics, and as such they place all of the decision-making responsibility in the hands of the Maori Party MPs.

Allow me to reiterate again that before the election, in a televised party leaders' debate, Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples issued a "guarantee" that if either of the major parties were to come to his party with a coalition offer, the Maori Party would make its response known within six days. This promise has, of course, not been delivered upon. A party could certainly be forgiven for the fact that they are taking such a long time to handle negotiations, as the hand that the members of Parliament have been dealt following this election is, needless to say, a substantially difficult one to work with. In contrast, though, it is not acceptable for a party to go back on a promise that it has pledged to the people of New Zealand, or at worst its actual constituency. Effectively, the Maori Party have performed the latter act, and Pita Sharples's badly-thought-out statement serves to place emphasis on the lack of Parliamentary experience that he, along with fellow Maori Party MPs Te Ururoa Flavell and Hone Harawira, possesses. The Maori Party have a lot to learn during this term, and they're going to have to learn fast.