What does the Treaty Debate, especially regarding the question of whether Sovereignty was ceded or not, have in common with the OJ Simpson Murder Trial in America? A lot. An incredible feature of OJ's trial was that surveys reported up to 75% of white Americans were convinced he committed the murders, whereas 75% of Black Americans were equally convinced he had not. None of those surveyed had attended the trial. If you were a black American who'd been beaten up by a police officer and whose father had been stitched up for a murder he didn't commit, then you would be convinced OJ was innocent. But if you were a white American who'd been robbed by a guy who happened to be black then you'd be convinced he was guilty. The battles raging in the world today are largely battles of beliefs. Many economic models are now being built that assume no-one knows the value of crucial parameters that determine the workings of the economy, but instead we have beliefs about them, like the relationship between effort and reward, based on our own experiences, that are constantly being revised. Statisticians call the process "Bayesian Updating". It was the name given to the Super Yacht that recently sank off Sicily. Artificial Intelligence applications of this process were how the ship's owner, Mike Lynch, became a billionaire.
Along similar lines to the OJ Simpson trial, a recent poll conducted by David Farrar of 1,000 people revealed that 35% of New Zealanders believe Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty in 1840, whereas 27% believe they did not, and the balance are undecided. Its getting close to the point where a third of the population believe sovereignty was ceded, a third believe it was not, and a third are undecided. Like OJ's trial, none of those 1,000 people have likely looked into the matter in any detail, and even if they did, would be no better off. I bet if you asked the 1,000 people exactly what is "sovereignty" none could tell you. I'm not sure on the definition either. In political science & economics, the sovereign authority is sometimes defined as the one who has a monopoly on the use of the force. That force mainly comes in the form of the power to tax and use violence. Only the State can levy charges on you, and bust into your house & throw you into prison for something it claims you did wrong, like not paying your taxes. Others can accuse you of not paying a bill, but they do not have the right to punish you with violence for it.
So its become ludicrous that we now have two sides to the Treaty debate, each convinced they know the truth as to what was in the minds of British Administrators & Māori Chieftains 150 years ago. Both sides to the Sovereignty debate only have beliefs about what they think is the truth - neither will ever know with any certainty what really happened. So its always amusing to read folks like Dr Brash and Dr Basset, both very knowledgeable people, make argument after argument, based on good reason, about how sovereignty was ceded in 1840. And its equally amusing hearing from politicians, academics, lawyers, sociologists and historians make equally sound arguments, also based on good reason, on how sovereignty was not ceded. Both sides are convinced they know the truth. But they've become like a Jewish person arguing with a Muslim, arguing with a Christian, arguing with a Hindu, about who is closer to the one-and-only-truth. They may have devout beliefs - and good on them - but that's it. An historian friend of mine became so fed up with the subject that they quit it, telling me their frustration was how so many of the most interesting historical questions turn on finding out what was in the mind of the leading players at the time - which almost never can be worked out with much certainty.
The challenge for New Zealanders is to come to grips with the fact that the answer to the question, "Was sovereignty ceded in the Treaty of Waitangi?" will never be known. Our most pressing need is to instead answer the truly relevant question, "Where does that leave us?". Yes it was a monumentally important document. Its just a shame no one knows what the parties were agreeing to. Maybe they didn't know themselves. Most of us who sign a contract aren't particularly clear what we're signing up to. Ambiguity abounds in every deal. That may be hard to swallow, but isn't it the truth? In this sense, ACT may have made a mistake with its proposed "Treaty Principles Bill". By naming it as such, with "Treaty" in the title, ACT may have made the (empty) debate about what the Treaty means an even more intense argument about nothing. The debate is not rational: it has become a religious-style disagreement based on faith, with followers joining different camps - each comprising born-again believers - each trying to convert disbelievers to their cause. ACT's bill should instead probably be called something like, "The Constitutional Principles Bill". It should simply map out the fundamental values all Kiwis hold dear, avoiding the futile Treaty-interpretation and mind reading game. Mind reading's hard enough to do even with your own family right now, let alone with people you never knew who lived nearly 200 years ago. Its not too late to re-purpose ACT's bill to ensure that it gets the support it needs to become law.
Comentários