Americans sometimes say that their country was founded on an idea. The extent that is true is something which may be debated. New Zealand, however, is clearly a country that was founded on a promise.
If you were a little bit religiously inclined, you might call it a a covenant. The commercially minded might see it as a contract. But whatever the precise terminology, this country exists because there was some kind of agreement at Waitangi that, on certain terms, it should.
Well, kind of. It would be hard to argue that there was a consensus ad idem – or meeting of the minds - between the signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi. The British Crown, thought it was getting full sovereignty, and the chiefs who signed clearly thought they were giving away something less.
If we were talking about the private dealings of private individuals, we might say that no enforceable agreement came into existence. Ot that if it did, we must strictly interpret the document in accordance with the principle of contra preferentum – interpretation against the drafting party. Or we might say that it was materially breached by the Crown at various points or repudiated by various Iwi and Māori leaders in the coming years.
But that’s not how countries work. There’s no just dissolving New Zealand and going our separate ways. Political power is something that exists as a matte of fact, not because of any theoretical justification and the New Zealand government is now sovereign simply because it has become sovereign.
That is hardly the end of matters, however.
A while ago, a gentleman gave a presentation about Rangitāne’s settlement to my Rotary club. Needless to say, the amount received in settlement was absolutely trifling compared to the theoretical value of the claim. There was a philosophical acceptance of this as the guy moved on to talk about all the fantastic things to which the settlement were being put.
It is not possible to make Māori whole through the settlement process. Too much was lost and there are too many other considerations in play for this to be a remotely realistic process. Māori are entitled to feel aggrieved about this and other New Zealanders should have the good grace to see why.
If your grandma had her house swindled for a few hundred dollars would you feel particularly satisfied if her estate accepted a few hundred more in compensation?
As we move beyond the settlement of historical claims we need to chart out a course for the future of the treaty, there will be still more discussions to be had about the nature of the promise at Waitangi and how it can be fulfilled, or better fulfilled, in a country that has undergone wave after wave of immigration. The next chapter is likely to rest heavily on how we institute conventions of involving Māori in the decision making process consistent with the principles of liberal democracy.
The questions here are not easy. Or, perhaps, few of the answers are easy.
Which is all a long and convoluted way of saying that lamenting Waitangi Day for not being a day of national unity misses the point. There are many great things about our country’s history that we can celebrate in an unadulterated way, but the events and subsequent history of Waitangi do not lend themselves to that. They are occasions for introspection, discussion and – yes – argument.
And there’s nothing wrong with having one day in the year for that.