Abstract
In Aotearoa – as is the case in many Western nations – the public tend to view ‘politics’ as a system where democracy equals voting, and one vote per person, no questions asked, no exceptions. This elicits a ‘gut’ feeling of fairness in many. The reliance on a narrow conceptualisation often means things gets labelled democratic or undemocratic, relevant or not, through a binary. From this, New Zealanders bolster the idea that free and fair elections are a key part of our democracy. Indeed, Aotearoa tends to rate highly on many international indexes of democratic quality and transparency. Often cited along with this is that New Zealand were the first country to ‘give’ women the vote (Atkinson, 2003). Aotearoa has also always had relatively high elections turnout, and students of politics often revel in the fact that New Zealand has not needed compulsory voting like Australia (Townrow, 2021).
But, in what follows, I argue that this narrow focus on voting is misplaced, especially when it comes to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Conceptualising democracy to include deliberative practice will better serve to uphold Te Tiriti within our electoral democracy.
Voter participation and the Independent Electoral Review
I had the privilege of spending 18 months as part of the Independent Electoral Review. Appointed by the sixth Labour government. Our role – as a group of six independent experts, alongside a secretariat of public servants – was to conduct a once-in-a-generation review of New Zealand’s electoral laws. The review was focused largely on voting, rather than the broader democratic system. Across 2022–2023, the review completed an initial stage of engagement with written submissions, meetings and workshops; an interim report; a second stage of engagement; and then a final report. This involved speaking to hundreds of experts and community representatives and reading thousands of submissions. Similar efforts took place under the 1986 Royal Commission into the Electoral System and the 2012 review into New Zealand’s Mixed Member Proportional voting system.
The terms of reference for the review meant the panel needed to “ensure New Zealand continues to have an electoral system that … upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi/ The Treaty of Waitangi”. However, the reality was the first 20 min or the start of many Māori submissions was about the limited terms of reference, and some raised the idea that voting alone cannot possibly uphold Te Tiriti, much less continue to (Independent Electoral Review, 2023b). Many mentioned constitutional transformation, citing the National Iwi Chairs-led Matike Mai (2016) report on the constitution, and that the review, in focusing on the electoral system and electoral law, was exploring the wrong parts of the democracy for Māori. As a result, I still have a number of questions (that cannot be explored in the word count in this piece), including: Can an electoral system ever uphold Te Tiriti, particularly tino rangatiratanga and Article 2 rights? Some may argue that an individual act – one person casting their one vote for a particular political party or candidate – is not likely to be sufficient to uphold this right if there is not further Māori control or participation in the overall democratic system.
When focusing simply on equity in participation in voting – from an Article 3 basis – there are also many inadequacies. Wilson’s (2009) history of the Māori electorates describes many clear historical inequities for the Māori roll such as the number of electorates not being able to grow with the population, a different voting day, retaining voting by a show of hands for longer, the long-term lack of a printed electoral roll, and not being able to vote in referenda. These inequitable laws and processes sat alongside a broader context that did not promote turnout. For instance, until relatively recently (1975) many Māori were administratively ‘stuck’ on the Māori roll, in contests overwhelmingly dominated by the Labour-Rātana alliance (Atkinson, 2003). This is important given the closeness of the race affects turnout (Townrow, 2021). The intergenerational effects of these-system level inequities and other, classic factors that affect turnout are not clear, but likely play a role given the emerging literature on how intergenerational trauma affects many other facets of life (e.g., Pihama et al., 2017).
While many of the Māori roll inequities have been remedied over time, the review still pointed to inadequacies in the current system. The review recommended a number of improvements to voting processes from this Te Tiriti lens, such as formally entrenching the Māori electorates, requiring decision makers to ‘give effect to’ Te Tiriti and report on it, enabling Māori data governance, changes to enrolment, and allowing for greater education about the Māori roll (Independent Electoral Review, 2023a). All of these would seek to uphold Te Tiriti in different ways, treating the Māori roll more equitably with the General one, and ensuring Māori influence into the election process so that it can best function for our communities. A point of hope has been the recent change (during the review) to the Māori Electoral Option, where instead of being stuck on the Māori or General roll until the option window opened every 5 years, voters of Māori descent are able to now change between rolls up until 3 months before the election (Electoral (Māori Electoral Option) Legislation Act 2022). Although, as the review points out, this is still likely insufficient, as the window before the General Election is when many are thinking about this roll choice (Independent Electoral Review, 2023a). However, ultimately, reform on this point hits a structural obstacle: how can politicians be persuaded to reform a system they believe works in their favour? When it comes to future governments taking up the recommendations of the Independent Electoral Review, the adage ‘turkeys don’t vote for Christmas’ applies.
A deliberative systems approach
New Zealand needs to look beyond voting and the electoral system to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi in its democracy. This requires moving beyond the narrow focus on electoral participation and embracing a more expansive, deliberative systems approach: one that recognizes and embeds the diverse ways communities engage in decision-making. Scholars have long argued that a robust deliberative system enhances democratic legitimacy by fostering inclusive, meaningful participation across institutions, actors, and processes (Curato and Böker, 2016; Mansbridge et al., 2012). This also aligns with the well-established principle that ‘what’s good for Māori is good for everybody.’
Te Ao Māori has long had its own rich traditions of deliberation, such as wānanga, hui, and pōwhiri, which could offer valuable models for democratic reform. A: How is your deliberative democracy project going? X: Yeah, it’s going okay. I’m reading a lot of interesting stuff but … [laughs] some of it gets a bit out there, hippy vibes for me. Like, deliberation as dance?! A: … Uh, so you mean, like haka? X: Um …. oops, yes!
My oversight was likely because I had focused more on the electoral candidate part of the story – voting and elections – rather than broader ideas of democracy. With this same project, when I tell many Māori I am working on Citizens’ Assemblies, I get the reaction of “ah yes, you mean wānanga then?”: that these concepts of deliberation are well embedded in Te Ao Māori (Smith et al., 2021). For me, it took reading American theorist Iris Marion Young’s (2000) Inclusion and Democracy to see these routine elements of Māori culture such as pōwhiri and hui as important parts of democracy and deliberation. Indeed, the broader academic corpus is beginning to highlight the strengths many cultures have in deliberation; those groups which are often made a numerical (and thus power) minority in a voting system.
Integrating deliberation more deeply into Aotearoa’s democratic system would not only help uphold Te Tiriti but could also create pathways to electoral law change, eventual constitutional transformation and Māori self-determination. While deliberative democratic innovations may not be a complete solution, they can serve as a crucial stepping stone: either by fostering greater public engagement or by addressing the ‘turkey problem’ and reducing politicians’ reluctance to reform the system. Professor Janine Hayward has long pointed to Citizens’ Assemblies as a tool for electoral law reform (Hayward, 2014), and similar approaches could be explored to address lobbying laws and (yet again) broader constitutional questions. Ultimately, a democracy that truly reflects Te Tiriti will require more than just periodic voting; it will demand a rethinking of participation that values and integrates the deliberative traditions that have always existed in Aotearoa.
