The same absolutist mentality that dominated our response to the pandemic is emerging again with how we are facing up to the Māori dimension of our history, to the detriment of our national cohesion
Opinion: Intolerance is generally a difficult subject to discuss. Often, those raising it are accused of promoting intolerance by doing so. Consequently, the subject is frequently ignored in polite discourse, allowing intolerance to grow and over time, by stealth, become acceptable.
There were examples of this during the first two and a half years of the pandemic. The overwhelming public concern and fear of the pandemic, whipped up to a frenzy by the Government to assure compliance for its measures, saw criticism of the official response ostracised and the virtue of being part of the "team of five million" emphasised, if not institutionalised. Those who dared raise their heads above the parapet were quickly silenced or dismissed as acting against the national effort to defeat the virus.
For example, the appalling way New Zealanders overseas seeking to return home were treated by the barbaric MIQ system should have caused a national outcry from the outset. But instead, because of the way fear and consequent intolerance had been drummed into New Zealanders from the "podium of truth", MIQ was accepted as a necessary evil in our fight to eliminate the virus.
Now the worst of the pandemic has passed, and life has returned to something close to what it used to be – more because of mass vaccination than any of the draconian restrictions imposed – the scales have dropped from our collective eyes. Discourse about what happened, the response, and the lessons for the future have become far more dispassionate and reasonable.
One of the major lessons from all this has been the value of taking the long and considered view of events. Perceived urgency to respond often leads to short-term, frequently unreasonable if not unsustainable, actions that can do damage far beyond the problem they were seeking to resolve. Countries are only now beginning to focus on the long-term detrimental economic and social impacts of the pandemic response. These are likely to be with us far longer, and far more deeply than the pandemic itself.
The way ahead lies with the moderate, middle ground of opinion that recognises, understands, and accepts the process of change without the histrionics. It understands that change is inevitable and irreversible, with the capacity to unite the country.
Many of the same intolerances are being displayed in the way we are facing up to the Māori dimension of our history and how we accord it greater recognition, respect, and involvement. Right now, issues such as the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, co-governance, Three Waters, and the increasing use of Te Reo Māori in media and daily communication are giving rise to intolerance that eerily parallels the early days of the pandemic response. Critics are reviled for speaking out. Intolerance and anger are becoming more pronounced, and bitterness entrenched.
This is not just limited to those resistant to the changes underway. These sentiments are equally present among those frustrated that change is not occurring fast enough. Between them they are brewing a dangerous cocktail which affects us all.
Much has properly been made over the past couple of weeks of the essentially racist comments of Ministers Kelvin Davis and Willie Jackson, chastising other Māori politicians for not being Māori enough. But unacceptable and disrespectful as their comments were (Davis has at least shown the wisdom and good grace to apologise for his remarks), they are no worse than the near constant comments of those who criticise with far more vehemence anything Māori – from Te Tiriti, through to the use of Te Reo in the media or on road signs. However, taken together, both sets of comments are fuelling an already smouldering fire of racial intolerance across the country.
Healthy debate is something to be encouraged and promoted in a free society. But the increasingly strident and vitriolic outbursts we are now seeing across the spectrum on this issue go well beyond that. That is leading to increasing polarisation between those who feel anxious and potentially threatened that change is occurring too quickly and they have little control over it, and those who feel things are not moving quickly enough. The same absolutist mentality that dominated our response to the pandemic is emerging all over again, to the detriment of our national cohesion.
This is not about pandering to the prejudices of the extremists on both sides of the debate – as always, they are at the margins. What is worrying is division is now becoming mainstreamed, which could lead to deep, potentially irreconcilable cleavages in our society, if left unchecked. As Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”.
However, the solution is not to attempt to reverse or stall the trends now underway – that would be to deny our history as a bicultural nation, and would be demographically impossible anyway. New Zealand is a unique nation, a mix of Māori, Pasifika, and Asian cultures, alongside our European heritage, that we need to embrace and cherish. But we need to develop better processes to manage the changes now underway. A starting point might be to recognise that change is inevitable, and should be acknowledged, not rejected. However, to be sustainable, change must be allowed to generate its own momentum, not be abruptly imposed according to a hurried, artificial timetable.
That means the likes of Davis and Jackson and those promoting equally strong views on the other side of the fence need to pull back from their extremism. The way ahead lies with the moderate, middle ground of opinion that recognises, understands, and accepts the process of change without the histrionics. It understands that change is inevitable and irreversible, with the capacity to unite the country.
However, too many New Zealanders now feel left out of the national conversation because we have stopped talking to each other. New Zealanders have become too adept at talking at and past each other, a trend exacerbated by the way we were treated during the pandemic. The “podium of truth” approach to public discourse must end, and instead a new tolerance, based on mutual respect, shared aspiration and understanding about the pace of change, must be promoted if our house is to continue to stand in the future.
