What does “democratising the Treaty debate” really mean?
A democratised debate may sound open and fair, but is this really the game being played?
The call to “democratise the Treaty debate” may seem like an invitation to open, inclusive dialogue, but beneath the surface lies a more complex reality. In the current political landscape, this approach seems to mean allowing opinions unanchored to historical fact or contemporary reality to shape the conversation and create doubt where there is none.
The risk of misinformation and distortion is clear. With powerful groups steering the narrative and a growing wave of populist rhetoric, democratising the debate is likely to lead to greater confusion and division rather than fairer outcomes.
In an open letter which I was party to, 27 licensed te reo Māori translators detailed how ACT’s proposed “Treaty principles” had little resemblance to the text of te Tiriti o Waitangi.1 After reading the letter, a friend responded, “So basically, they’ve just made shit up!!”
It’s a hard point to argue, as ACT’s principles were built entirely on omissions, additions and distortions to the text of te Tiriti that they claimed to represent. The updated principles approved by Cabinet don’t seem much different.
David Seymour has likened New Zealand’s current situation to the church Reformation in the 1500s, where only priests, fluent in Latin, could read the Bible. In his analogy, the Reformation was driven by the desire for everyone to read the scriptures and form their own interpretations.
Seymour stated, “It feels like that. What we are saying is that everybody has the right to read the Treaty and make up their own minds, not just those who identify themselves as experts.”2
In this context, democratising the debate means encouraging people to assert opinions about the meaning of our founding document - regardless of whether they can read it or have learned about our history. This doesn’t mean that people who don’t speak te reo shouldn’t be part of a conversation about our future. But the standard of a truthful starting point must be key here.
The current approach entails validating perspectives that are not based in fact or reality. Essentially, it means that anyone can “make shit up” about what they wish the Treaty said, rather than fostering an informed conversation about how we co-exist and thrive, based on the document’s actual content. Perhaps you’d prefer the Treaty to guarantee free ice cream for everyone? Or mandate a three-month paid summer holiday?
This approach plunges us into the realm of post-truth politics, with a constitutional debate being driven by misinformation. That is a slippery slope, and international examples show the dangers of heading down this path.
Whether or not we like what we have inherited, surely it is better to continue to live within the bounds of reality. We can create the opportunity to engage in genuine, nuanced conversations over time about how we move forward together.
In a democratised debate, misinformation can easily flourish. The narrative often shifts towards simplistic emotional appeals, sidelining the complexities and respect that are essential to a meaningful conversation. Furthermore, powerful groups can still dominate these supposedly open debates, leveraging their resources and media platforms to shape the conversation to their advantage.
ACT has already claimed the upper hand in this debate, dictating the framing and terms, aided and enabled by the coalition government. Others are gearing up. In response to last week’s announcement of the Cabinet-approved “Treaty principles”, Hobson’s Pledge sent an email to supporters beseeching them for funding to build “a dedicated website to facilitate submissions and provide information” as well as to pay for social media ads for their campaign. They also sought “friends” with websites, large social media platforms, billboards, and signage space.
It is clear that a well-funded campaign is on its way, set to further fuel misinformation and fear. In the vacuum created by the lack of genuine education about te Tiriti, this campaign will likely hinder productive dialogue, amplifying divisions without addressing the core issues.
As we navigate this crucial constitutional conversation, it is essential to ground our debates in truth and informed understanding. Only by engaging in genuine, nuanced discussions can we hope to create a future that truly creates space for us all to thrive.