The incorporation of Maori within New Zealand's evolving majoritarian system of government, 1984 to 1993

Abstract

This thesis is concerned with how New Zealand 1 s traditionally majoritarian system of government has evolved between 1984 and 1993, particularly so as to better incorporate the Maori ethnic minority. The theoretical framework employed is Lijphart's (1984a) majoritarian and consensus models of representative democracies and the two dimensional continuum which exists between them. The argument is made that New Zealand's system of government is currently evolving along this continuum in a more consensual direction. Particular attention is given to the over­ reliance of certain features of the consensus model on the existence of relatively distinct, stable and internally coherent societal cleavages. The central aim of the thesis is to investigate the extent to which the changes in New Zealand's system of government, which have occurred over the previous decade, have taken proper account of the realities of Maori ethnic affiliation.

The thesis will conclude with two main findings. First, it will be found that Maori do not, at either the national or iwi (tribal) level, constitute a distinct, stable and internally coherent societal cleavage, or cleavages, of the type associated with certain features of the consensus model. Second, it will be found that while some of the ways in which New Zealand's system of government has evolved in a consensual direction - such as the adoption of a proportional electoral system - are not based on the assumption that such cleavages exist, others - such as the experiment with 1w1 devolution and the current iwi-based Treaty of Waitangi claims resolution process - clearly are. As a result of these findings it will be suggested that neither of the systems of government prescribed by Lijphart's majoritarian or consensus models are suited to contemporary New Zealand. A balance instead needs to be found between giving adequate representation to Maori within New Zealand's system of government, while at the same time not creating rigid structures to do this which ignore the potentially dynamic and often ambiguous nature of Maori ethnic affiliation