Hannah Arendt, the political philosopher, once wrote that “power always stands in need of numbers”. That insight, made in the context of a study into the nature of violence, is one that commentators often turn to when explaining why Māori appear to fare so much better than Indigenous peoples in other parts of the Anglosphere. Māori make up more than 15% of the New Zealand population – more than five times larger than the Aboriginal Australian or Native American share of their national populations – meaning Māori are in a better position to press for guaranteed representation in parliament and local government, for dedicated television channels and radio stations, for native language schooling, and more. Indigenous peoples in other countries, to paraphrase Arendt, stand in need of numbers.
The argument is seductively simple. Social scientists sometimes call it the 3.5% rule. In other words, if enough people engage in active struggle – from workers’ strikes to street protests – the disruption they cause is almost always enough to guarantee political change. In the 1980s socialist organisers were turning out tens of thousands of people on the streets to protest the Springbok tour, nuclear warships, and racism against Māori. It’s impossible to measure whether the 3.5% threshold was met, but it’s obvious enough that the many thousands who took part in demonstrations and advocacy were enough to cancel any further Springbok tours, to prohibit nuclear warships from New Zealand waters, and to strengthen the Treaty of Waitangi’s position in the New Zealand constitution.
