What is a New Zealander?
Zealand culture, based on a narrow set of values, such as ‘‘mateship’’, Godfery says. But Key’s urge to ‘‘drape himself all over the All Blacks’’, does at least help us understand what his position was in 1981, says Victoria University political scientist Jon Johansson.
Key was famously unable to recall whether he was for or against the 1981 Springbok Tour. Was that an early instance of politically useful forgetfulness?
Political leadership is one of Johansson’s topics. He co-edited a book on the 2014 election, Moments of Truth, which is out this month; his chapter is titled ‘‘Leadership in a vacuum: Campaign ‘14 and the limits of ‘followership’ ’’. He argues that Key’s leadership has been about following public opinion rather than trying to lead it. The refugee story is a good example: the instinctive reaction of the National base would have been to take no extra Syrian refugees, but centrist New Zealand opinion pushed Key to act.
Nine times out of 10, Key’s positions have been flexible, Johansson says. But flag change was always intended as a legacy project and is a rare example of Key trying to lead public opinion.
As part of its process, the Flag Consideration Panel asked New Zealanders what the country stands for. The results were assembled into a ‘‘word cloud’’ in which these 10 words dominated: freedom, history, equality, respect, family, heritage, present, future, Kiwi and integrity.
With one exception, they are not unique to New Zealand. When he teaches, Johansson talks about some other, more nuanced New Zealand qualities: fiercely independent, egalitarian in both a good and a bad sense, ‘‘first in the world’’ and similar examples of Kiwi self-bolstering.
FLAGS AND PATRIOTISM
The desired end result of the flag change process, as Key has said, is patriotism. But are we even unpatriotic? Robinson doubts that, although we do lack the flagwaving, overt patriotism of the United States.
Key is after blind patriotism, Johansson says, while dismissing constructive patriotism. Those who protested against the TransPacific Partnership Agreement would be constructive patriots.
Blindly patriotic messages can often seem incoherent. Ahead of the Rugby World Cup, a Steinlager billboard appeared that put a can of beer in front of a night view of a rugby pitch, and one big word in Gothic script: ‘‘Believe’’. The image was both pseudo-religious and nationalistic. Believe in what, though? Rugby? Beer?
Nationalism is powerful politically because of its incoherence, not despite it, says Dougal McNeill, a lecturer in English at Victoria University. It works best when it is inarticulate, which is why Key has it all wrong with the flag change, he says. The process has made it ‘‘explicit that it’s the call for a national brand rather than keeping that appeal vague, imprecise and emotional’’.
And ‘‘believe’’? Rugby and patriotism are linked in New Zealand, but the patriotism goes only one way, Andrew Dean observes.
‘‘New Zealanders must be loyal to the All Blacks, but they seem to owe us nothing, and New Zealand Rugby’s concern is the financial wellbeing of the organisation,’’ he says. ‘‘The refusal to give the Crown rights to the fern is in keeping with New Zealand Rugby’s relationship with New Zealanders more generally in the last few years. Despite the huge national significance of the team, All Blacks games are shown on pay TV, a move that puts short-term profit ahead of intangibles such as bringing the country together or long-term concerns such as growing the game.’’
The big and intangible questions about New Zealand and its values are now tied up with a two-part referendum. In November, we get to pick one flag from the shortlist of four. The winner will be put up against the current flag in March.
The short list of four is easy to mock. In an example of constructive patriotism, actor Sam Neill wrote on Twitter that ‘‘three look like logos for a new sportswear franchise’’, while the koru looks like ‘‘a tidal wave of despair’’. Is that New Zealand now? Three parts sport to one part depression?
Dougal McNeill thinks the four designs are ‘‘banal, bovine and bland’’, which reflects the Government’s world view. Take unresolved tensions and colonial history out of the picture and New Zealand is the dull place represented by the short list.
It’s no wonder that a wild card – the Red Peak flag – has emerged for those who would rather not join the Returned and Services Association on a journey back to the old New Zealand by lobbying for the current flag but are also uninspired by the approved short list of four.
The national mood is hard to judge. On Monday, Johansson asked 80 students in his New Zealand politics class about their plans for the referendum. The result? ‘‘Two-thirds intend to spoil their ballot papers. This is young people who have come to that conclusion all on their own.’’
That is round one. What will happen in round two, early next year, is much tougher to pick. But in any event, the referendum will be more than a survey of attitudes towards New Zealand and its values and traditions. It will be a very public test of the power of the John Key brand.