Kenan Çamurcu

There have, of course, been times when the political regime in Turkey genuinely sought to resolve the "Kurdish issue." However, there have also been instances where attempts to integrate the "problem" into civilian life led to darker paths. This probably relates to the bewildered struggle to suppress rebellion, coupled with the enlistment of ordinary people as militias in this endeavor, due to an inability to discern how to resolve the issue. Optimists still believe that a common ground is being sought that won't disrupt the established order.

This article was written from the perspective of such optimism. We aim to contribute to the search for precedents, drawing from examples like the Basque model and the Irish model, by examining the Maori experience in New Zealand. We will highlight the level of civilization in New Zealand where Maori ethno-symbolism, which is reactive even to the territorial New Zealand nation-state (a state that is non-ethnic and thus could comfortably include Maoris), is not driven out of the legitimate sphere. Even though the New Zealand example is beyond a dream for Turkey, let it stand as a contribution to the search for precedents.

In the age of empires, states successfully held diverse nations together within the same country and society, with their ethnic identities recognized. The emergence of nation-states as empires disintegrated was an anomalous situation where each nation had to fend for itself. At this moment of re-blending, nations that failed to establish a state would experience living under the overarching identity of the dominant and founding nation. While existing as an ethnic identity within a nation-state became impossible in examples like Turkey, some cases—owing to their country-state characteristics—managed to create space for different ethnic identities. New Zealand can be considered an advanced example of this. Yet, despite this, the Maoris demand more, and their political struggle in this direction is not seen as a threat to the country's integrity.

The analysis is a bit long. But since we're writing for the curious, we're not catering to the daily consciousness level that pursues popular topics. The curious and eager won't mind the length of the article.

So, let's begin.

From Aotearoa to New Zealand: A New Country, a New Nation

Since European colonizers decided to settle in New Zealand after arriving in the mid-19th century for whaling, the war with the indigenous Maori people ended with a treaty in 1840 between Maori tribal chiefs, and European settlement on the island began. Initially pursuing colonial aims, the Europeans, who named Aotearoa (the land of the long white cloud) "New Zealand," gradually began to embrace it with the historical and cultural heritage of the Maoris, asserting their independence as a nation. Thus, New Zealand nationalism emerged as an identity against the outside world.

New Zealand nationalism, unlike the experiences of other colonized countries, did not manifest as a cultural imposition by colonizers or the assimilation of the indigenous people. On the contrary, the colonizers adapted to the indigenous culture, even identifying with it. So much so that alongside "New Zealand," the country's official name for a long time, the Maori name "Aotearoa" is also used. "Aotearoa" is an adjective consisting of two or three words: Aotea and roa, or Ao tea and roa. "Aotea" could be the name of one of the canoes used during the mythological Maori migration, or of the Large Magellanic Cloud next to the bright star Canopus in summer, or of a bird, or even food. "Ao" means cloud, dawn, day, or world; "tea" means white or clear, perhaps bright; and "roa" means long or tall. It is thought that the Polynesian explorer Kupe gave this name to the North Island after his wife, Hine-te-aparangi, exclaimed "it is a cloud, a cloud," and it later evolved to encompass both islands (McLintock, 1966).

While the New Zealand flag represents the state, the Maori flag represents the country and is hoisted alongside the New Zealand flag on national days. The demography formed by colonization and the indigenous Maori people are referred to as Kiwi (the country's symbolic bird and fruit), distinguishing them from the immigrant population and foreign tourists. The country's prime minister participates in official ceremonies wearing the Maori tribal chief's status-expressing cloak. Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's participation in palace-hosted ceremonies in the United Kingdom wearing a Maori chief's cloak was interpreted as an expression of territorial nationalism that distinguishes New Zealand from its colonial legacy.

Despite the contribution of the new New Zealand population, formed through marriages, and the Maori cultural heritage and history being fundamental elements and components of New Zealand nationalism, there is also a reactive Maori nationalism in the country. This nationalism is represented in parliament by the Maori Party and advocates for the self-determination rights of the Maoris.

Although there were a series of disputes between Maori and European settlers before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840, the Treaty provided a legal context for protest because it made New Zealand a British colony, with British law and administration applied. The British authorities signed the Treaty with the intention of establishing a British Governorship of New Zealand, recognizing Maori ownership of their lands, forests, and other properties, and granting them the rights of British subjects. However, in accepting these rights, the Maoris effectively ceded their sovereignty. This led to reactions from the settlers, whom the Maoris called Pakeha, against their colonization activities, and even to wars.

Modern Maori nationalism emerged as part of the Maori Renaissance in the early 1970s. The movement's agenda included issues such as land rights, the preservation and development of the Maori language and culture, and the fight against racism. Most members of the movement were Maori, but they also received support from non-Maori left-wing white New Zealanders. The movement achieved the return of some Maori lands and ensured that the Maori language became an official language of New Zealand in 1987 (Maori Language Act, 1987).

The political activity of Maori ethnic identity, which shows quite different characteristics from the nationalisms of minorities in other countries in terms of geographical context and identity issues determining the debate, may be useful in resolving the unfounded tension adopted by the established order in approaching the Kurdish issue in Turkey and in trying a new approach.

The analysis of nationalism based on the demand for self-determination that emerged from the indigenous Maori people of New Zealand, colonized by European immigrants, will lead to interesting results. There are characteristics that distinguish the political manifestation of Maori ethnic identity from the European understanding of nationalism that forms nations. Despite their nationalist consciousness, the Maoris still preserve rival tribal structures, and Maori nationalism has not transformed into a political movement based on a national consciousness encompassing all Maoris.

Before the European migration, the Maoris lived in tribes and, according to the colonization agreement, retained ownership of their lands but relinquished their right to political sovereignty. After the establishment of the state named New Zealand, when the concepts of state and political sovereignty first emerged, Maori nationalism arose, demanding self-determination and political sovereignty in the lands they owned. Although the nationalism of the New Zealand state is predominantly based on Maori history and culture, it is not possible to explain Maori nationalism's aim of ethnic national sovereignty with existing nationalism theories.

Unlike the Palestinian-Israeli, Spain-Basque, England-Ireland (and Scotland), and Turkey-Kurdish ethno-symbolic conflicts and debate areas, there might be lessons to be learned from the answer to the question of how the Maori ethnic identity, considered a component of New Zealand national identity, gained political identity through a nationalist movement and why it insists on self-determination despite experiencing no problems in institutional representation.

Fikret's Distant Dream: New Zealand

It would not be out of place to liken New Zealand to the mythical island with the fountain of life in Ibn Sina/Ibn Tufayl's (11th century) novel Hayy b. Yaqdhan – which Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar regarded as "the sole novel of the Muslim world" (Tanpınar, 1982: 30) – described as "the great and angry sea at the very end of the Maghreb" (Ibn Sina/Ibn Tufayl, 2004: 35). However, it is also true that on the political side of utopia, Daniel Defoe's (17th century) Robinson Crusoe story, which is solely about enslaving man and nature, would prevail. Crusoe, a British bourgeois, unlike Hayy b. Yaqdhan, doesn't grapple with any existential issues, but instead focuses on taming the state of nature he finds himself in, and ultimately returns to his country as a rich man (Yeniçeri, 2017: 228). This adventure is considered a summary of the Western man's exploitative and abusive view of colonization goals. Although the process in New Zealand began similarly, over time, a change in understanding occurred, gradually acquiring a philosophical quality closer to the Hayy b. Yaqdhan experience.

The choice of New Zealand for the "green homeland" utopia of the Servet-i Fünûn circle, who struggled for freedom in the Ottoman Empire but began to contemplate emigration in despair, also represents an affiliation with the world of Hayy b. Yaqdhan.

The Servet-i Fünûn (new literature) artists, convinced of the impossibility of escaping Abdülhamid II's "era of despotism," argued that emigration to a utopia where they would not see the Sultan and his men was the only way out. As recounted by Hüseyin Kâzım Kadri, they were burning with desire but didn't know what to do. Finally, (Tevfik) Fikret found a solution: to emigrate from this country (Kadri, 1991: 61). Led by Fikret, they began to express this idea in their works. After long conversations, the island of New Zealand was accepted as the most tangible embodiment of their dream (Türk, 2014: 1502). At that time, everyone in England was going particularly to New Zealand for emigration. It was a very fertile and productive place, with a very pleasant climate and weather (Rauf, 1997: 67). They would emigrate to this green homeland and raise a brand new generation there.

The Servet-i Fünûn circle couldn't realize their "green homeland" utopia in New Zealand and had to settle for a village in Manisa. However, the indigenous people of New Zealand, the Maoris, successfully settled in this country, composed of two large islands and many smaller ones, a thousand years ago, after an epic sea voyage, in a mythological migration story starting from Hawaiki. In Maori mythology, Hawaiki is where Io, the supreme being, created the world and the first humans. Everyone came from there and will return there after death (Royal, 2015).

Are the Indigenous Maori People Mesopotamian?

Despite assumptions that the mythological Hawaiki is one of the Polynesian island clusters, research on the Maori language suggests that Maoris might have come from India, or even Mesopotamia. A close relationship has been found between Vedic religious stories in South Asia and Polynesian religious narratives. The love story of the hero king Vikrama and the celestial fairy Urvasi is identical to the drama experienced by Te Niniko and his celestial fairy wife in Maori mythology. Aryan records mention that Noah was saved during the flood caused by the overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia, referring to Noah as "Manu." Manu means "floating" in Maori. Another Maori proverb says, "All fish came from Rangiri." Rangiri is a place near Hugli, a branch of the Ganges River near Calcutta, where the first fish was caught by Polynesians. The fish-god cult, originating from water as the source of life, developed in the Bharata belief and spread to Polynesia (Agarwal, 2012: 420).

According to the generally accepted view, contemporary Maoris were descendants of Polynesian farmers who settled in New Zealand in the 9th century. After some time, some of them settled in what are now the Chatham Islands and became known as the Moriori. These two societies, from the same origin, followed different development paths and were always in conflict. The Maoris, residents of the North Island, developed more complex technologies and political organization, while the Moriori, residents of the South Island, developed less complex ones. The group whom the Maoris called "Moriori" in the sense of "primitive people" continued their historical journey with hunting and gathering, while the North Island Maoris transitioned to sedentary life and farming (Diamond, 2010: 54-55).

It is certain that Maori society was settled when Europeans arrived in the late 18th century. When Captain James Cook explored the islands in 1769-1770, approximately 250,000 Maoris lived in New Zealand, mostly on the North Island. Their economy was based on agriculture, and the most cultivated crop was Kumara (sweet potato). It is believed that the person who introduced Kumara to the Maoris was an Indian named Kahukara. The wild tuber grown in the Orissa state of India is also called Kumar (Agarwal, 2012: 420).

While James Cook was the first European to discover New Zealand, French explorers also investigated New Zealand. Jean-François Marie de Surville arrived in New Zealand two months after Cook but had to leave due to conflicts with the Maoris (Orchiston & Orchiston, 2017: 58). The first European settlement, however, was a whaling and sealing station established in 1792 on the South Island. At that time, New Zealand had not yet become a colony.

The British established an Anglican mission on the North Island in 1814, on the grounds that the Maoris were being ill-treated by traders and whalers. When similar incidents between Maoris and traders recurred, they extended the jurisdiction of the New South Wales court in Australia to New Zealand in 1823, on the grounds of establishing law and order. In 1833, the British government appointed James Busby (1802-1871) as the first British Resident to the country. Busby's duty was to protect British settlers and traders and to prevent harassment of Maoris by less regulated Europeans. Sent by the British Colonial Office to resolve the problem of New Zealand's administration, James Busby persuaded the Confederation of Chiefs of the United Tribes of New Zealand to declare New Zealand's Declaration of Independence in Waitangi in 1835 (Canbazoğlu, 2010: 322).

England's policy of tranquility and stability could not prevent an increase in incidents as trade and settlement developed. Moreover, in 1840, the French established a rival settlement to the British on the South Island. These developments forced the British to abandon their policy of refraining from intervention in the islands. On January 29, 1840, British sovereignty was declared in New Zealand, and preparations immediately began for signing a treaty with the Maoris. On February 5, 1840, the Waitangi Pact, recognizing British sovereignty in the North Island, was signed between Captain William Hobson, who would become New Zealand's first governor, and 45 Maori tribal chiefs. According to the agreement, the ownership of tribal lands remained with the Maoris. This treaty allowed for the settlement of British-born immigrants on the island, while also including provisions that the indigenous Maori people could only sell their lands to British administrators (Yanık, 2012: 196).

The treaty was later signed by over 500 Maori chiefs throughout the country. However, problems never ceased due to the confusion arising from the English and Maori equivalents of the words "sovereignty" and "governance" in the treaty text. The cancellation of the Waitangi Treaty has always been the primary objective of Maori nationalism.

From Colonial Political Sovereignty to the New Zealand Nation

New Zealand was made a new colony, separate from Australia, in 1842. By 1850, six self-governing provinces were established on the North and South Islands. At that time, people felt more like Aucklanders or Wellingtonians than New Zealanders. From 1876 onwards, with the development of communication and transportation, New Zealand ceased to be a distant country with only rural settlements, and a new nation was emerging. In the process of nation-building, women were granted the right to vote in 1883. New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant women the right to vote. It also became the first country to grant pensions to elderly men in 1898.

The Boer Wars (1899-1902), fought alongside England in South Africa, were significant factors in the nation-building process. New Zealanders, who earned a reputation as "the best soldiers in South Africa," participated in these wars alongside British, Australian, and Canadian military units. Subsequently, they joined World War I as ANZAC (Australia-New Zealand Army Corps) forces with 100,000 troops. Despite suffering a heavy defeat and significant losses, the Gallipoli campaign made important contributions to the development of New Zealand's national consciousness.

Hegel's theory that "self-consciousness" develops through comparison with the other is used in approaches explaining nation-building. According to this, consciousness first knows itself. It also knows what it knows by moving from what is not itself (Hegel, 2012: 185). It is true that New Zealanders' encounters with the Western and Eastern "other" through wars enabled them to realize and become conscious of themselves. Gallipoli, therefore, was not just a front for New Zealanders; it was the birthplace of their national identity (North, 1936: 20). The development of a distinct New Zealand identity and national character, separate from the British colonial identity, is more closely linked to World War I in the context of the ANZAC spirit (Oam, 1961).

Among the data from interviews with New Zealand citizens who attended the Dawn Service on April 25th, the anniversary of the Gallipoli campaign, answers such as "the war enabled New Zealand to become an independent nation," "they fought against the Germans," and "they fought in vain for the British" (Keser, 2019: 45) demonstrate the intellectual and emotional infrastructure of New Zealand nationalism.

The economic boom after World War II propelled New Zealand into the ranks of the world's prosperous countries. However, in the 1950s, New Zealand was still a remote and culturally isolated nation. The increase in global communication and interaction ended New Zealand's geographic isolation while also creating disruptive effects on society. With the spread of mass media expanding the network of information, protests began in the country, and New Zealand was forced to withdraw its troops sent to fight alongside Americans in Vietnam in 1965 (Hawkins, 2011). Although considered Western, the New Zealand people now saw themselves as a distinct nation from other Western countries and were focused on protecting their national interests.

Literary nationalism, which played an active role in the formation of New Zealand's national identity, also includes studies on Maori history, mythology, and culture. Among these, works such as Anthony Alper's Maori Myths and Tribal Legends (1964) and Erik Schwimmer's The Maori People in the Nineteen-Sixties (1968) stand out. Charles Brasch also included his research on Maori life in his Landfall Country (1962) selection, incorporating it into New Zealand culture (Dean, 2020: 20).

Despite European immigrants (Pakeha) maintaining cultural ties with "the motherland" England, there is a widespread belief that those born in New Zealand are stronger and more adaptable than the English (Phillips: 2005). In rural life, an image of New Zealanders as resilient, hardworking, and problem-solving developed (Kennedy, 2007: 398). However, from the 1980s onwards, Pakeha began to explore their unique traditions. The claim was that New Zealanders had an original culture that was neither Maori nor British, and this cultural heritage was represented by elements called "Kiwiana." Examples include sandals, the wooden bumblebee toy, the Swandri bush shirt, red-band gumboots, Pohutukawa trees (New Zealand Christmas tree), No: 8 wire (a common gauge of wire), Kiwi bach (New Zealand caravan), Paua shells (New Zealand abalone), and so on.

It is noted that Katie Pickles from Canterbury University announced the launch of a program on Kiwi culture in the academic curriculum, where students would learn about Kiwiana as a way to understand their own culture and how New Zealanders would portray themselves (Turner, 2012). Most people who emphasize the importance of a common identity prefer to keep ethnic divisions to a minimum and promote the identity of "New Zealander" or informally "Kiwis" to encompass all differences. To express cultural commonality, Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day were declared two national memorial days observed as public holidays nationwide. Linda S. Levstik, proposing a new history curriculum in schools through the "historical empathy" method, states that New Zealand, a legally bicultural country (Maori and Pakeha), includes elements from both cultures in its educational program (Levstik, 2001: 69 et seq.).

Undoubtedly, intolerance towards indigenous peoples is a typical characteristic of colonial states. As Europeans settled in New Zealand in the 19th century, Maoris were subjected to intense racism and discrimination. In the 50s and 60s, Maoris lived in designated areas (the reservation), separate from European neighborhoods (The Truth About Aotearoa: 2021). However, over time, the nature of cultural encounters changed. Already partly due to their strength in war and political negotiation, Maoris had been granted civil rights through the Waitangi Treaty more than a century before Aboriginal people were enfranchised in Australia. Maoris held 4 seats in Parliament (now 7), determined solely by Maori voters, starting in 1867 (Māori and the vote, 2018), and were members of national sports teams from the outset. Marriages between Pakeha and Maoris are much more widely accepted than marriages between blacks and whites in the US. Indeed, Pakeha even considered Maoris genetically superior and, by the end of the 19th century, regarded them as having Aryan origins, like the Anglo-Saxons (Hokowhitu, 2004: 265).

In later years, the migration of Maoris to cities, leading to greater interaction and intermingling between Maoris and Pakeha in urban areas, and the growth of new generations without strong ties to the old cultural heritage, contributed to the social and cultural resolution of the discrimination problem.

From the late 1960s onwards, Maori organizations, influenced by the American Black civil rights movement, challenged the treatment of their culture and rights. They received support from Pakeha groups such as the Auckland Committee on Racism and Discrimination (ACORD), which investigated discrimination against Maoris. Between the late 1960s and mid-1980s, attitudes towards race relations changed. The 1971 Race Relations Act prohibited discrimination based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin. A Race Relations Conciliator was appointed to establish procedures for investigating complaints of discrimination. Under the 1977 Human Rights Commission Act, discrimination based on marital status, gender, religion, and ethical beliefs also became illegal. Pakeha intolerance and institutional discrimination were comprehensively challenged (Human Rights Commission, 1977).

Maori activism regarding land rights, culture, and language led to the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975 to investigate alleged breaches of the Waitangi Treaty (Treaty of Waitangi Act, 1975). Based on the Tribunal's findings, the Crown initiated a series of settlements from the late 1980s onwards, including sensitivity towards Maoris in state institutions, reparations for Waitangi Treaty breaches, and the transfer of fishing and similar resources to Maori ownership. Active efforts were made to establish new institutions like Kohanga Reo (language nests) to support Maori cultural interests. Although the settlement process was often challenging, slow, and institutional change difficult, by the 2000s, New Zealand was a very different place for Maoris than it had been before.

The Scope and Types of Maori Nationalism

Daniel Rosenblatt from Carleton University in Canada proposed a theory regarding the essence of Maori nationalism with a model he called "cognatic nationalism." "Cognatic nationalism" refers to two types of kinship in Roman law: agnatic (legal) and cognatic (blood relation) (See: İpek, 2015: 167-204). According to the assumption of this nationalism, if everyone had some Maori ancestor, everyone would be Maori by kinship, or at least could legitimately claim a Maori identity in some contexts. This model, in a sense, Maorifies the New Zealand nation. Rosenblatt, instead of finding this political solution designed for Maori sovereignty ridiculous, suggested discussing whether it could resolve complaints (Rosenblatt, 2005: 111).

The common essence of Maori nationalisms, from the moderate to the most extreme, is to re-share or fully reclaim the sovereignty ceded by the 1840 Waitangi Treaty. It seems that Maori nationalists do not consider the parliamentary quota, the affirmative action laws protecting Maoris, and the level achieved with privileges recognized in state institutions to be sufficient. For some, this suggests that Maori nationalism is an irrational and romantic movement focused on emotional gratification rather than having a rational and realistic agenda.

Maori nationalism can be analyzed as an example of sub-state nationalism that advocates for self-determination despite experiencing no problems in official and institutional representation. Here, the category of "sub-state nationalism" does not refer to ethnic sensitivity (Saylan, 2017: 93) arising in reaction to the homogenizing program of the unitary and centralized nation-state. This is because such a systematic approach is not in effect towards Maoris in New Zealand. Maori nationalism is considered sub-state nationalism due to its constitutional recognition, regional autonomy, institutional representation, as well as state support socially, culturally, and economically (Catt and Murphy, 2003: 1).

Maori nationalists, while centering their struggle on regaining the sovereignty they believe was lost with the Waitangi Treaty, overlook the conditions under which the treaty was signed. The word "kawanatanga," the Maori equivalent of "sovereignty" in the English text of the treaty, was a unitary dominion that tribal chiefs were unfamiliar with in its modern and political sense and had no practice of in Aotearoa. If the word "mana," expressing the power and authority of tribal chiefs, had been used instead of this word, no tribal chief would have relinquished their own power, authority, and dominion (Rosenblatt, 2005: 114), and a central government/state could not have been established in the country.

Since the New Zealand government, with the 1859 Constitution Act, encouraged Maoris to participate in citizenship that united the nation and the state, the Act became an early sign of tension. The political citizenship provided by the state during this period conflicted with the political dimensions of the exercise of self-determination by the indigenous people, including famous movements such as Kingitanga and Kotahitanga (Mann, 2017: 143).

With the European population tripling in the 1850s, increasing again in the 1860s, and doubling once more in the 1870s, the demand for housing rose sharply. To meet this demand, machines began to be used in the North Island for timber production, replacing manual labor, and the activity was enormous even by today's standards. By 1850, four giant companies had begun operations in Auckland alone. Meanwhile, deforestation continued. However, the expansion of settlement in the country led to a series of conflicts with the Maoris, who had contributed to the development of wood-related industries and flax cultivation. This state of war continued for many years on the North Island until the Maoris lost all their resources (1870). These twenty-year wars are called the "New Zealand Wars" (Maori Wars or Land Wars) (Keenan, 2012). These wars resulted in the decisive defeat of the Maoris, except for those who supported the government.

Food stocks created through taxation serve to feed kings and bureaucrats, as well as other full-time specialists. They can be used to maintain a standing army directly related to wars of conquest. This is something that played a decisive role in the British Empire's conclusive defeat of the well-armed indigenous Maori people of New Zealand. The Maoris occasionally won surprising victories, but they were unable to maintain a continuous army on the battlefield and eventually surrendered to 18,000 full-time British soldiers (Diamond, 2010: 100). When the war period ended, Maori nationalists continued on their path with the idea of a struggle for rights and separatism.

From the King Movement (1859) to Kotahitanga and the Maori Parliament of the 1880s and 1890s, all nationalist and separatist movements focused on establishing their own government. These movements, with a nationalism that would unite the Maoris with a cause and ideology, called for the establishment of an independent government not subject to the colonizers' government (McRae, 1984: 285). However, by the end of the 19th century, as the economic value of Maori lands increased and the welfare of the people improved, the independence movements returned under the umbrella of the Pakeha government. The Maori Parliament and the Young Maori Party fundamentally changed their policies towards the Maori people and continued with a new image. Maori leaders considered iconoclastic in traditional politics, such as Apirana Ngata, Maaui Poomare, and Te Rangi Hiiroa, persuaded the people to abandon separatist goals and convinced them that greater effectiveness could be achieved in the Pakeha parliament (McRae, 1984: 286).

The efforts displayed by Maoris to bring to light their traditional cultural characteristics that existed in the past but were on the verge of being forgotten, led to an increase in liberal desires with the aim of reinventing the bicultural nation perception between them and the immigrants (Yanık, 2012: 197). For example, during the 2010 Waitangi celebrations, the chief of the Ngai Tahu tribe refused to hoist the controversial Maori flag in the South Island. One of the tribal members said, "The flag brings trouble" (Gates and Hartevelt, 2010).

It is important that the majority of Maori voters, instead of supporting nationalist and separatist movements, at one point voted for Winston Peters' right-wing, conservative, populist New Zealand First party, who himself is half-Maori (Henderson and Bellamy, 2022: 5). The independence of the South Island is, in fact, advocated not by Maoris, but by white nationalists. Even Member of Parliament Richard Prosser called for the establishment of an independent parliament in the South Island in 2007 to be part of the New Zealand Confederation (Candidate calls for Southern Assembly, 2007). Separatist groups such as the New Zealand South Island Party (NZ South Island Party), South Island First, The New Munster Party (named after the Munster region comprising the South Island and Stewart Island), and The South Island Independence Movement are fighting for the independence of the South Island.

In contrast, the co-leaders of the Maori Party in parliament, Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, opened a petition demanding that the name New Zealand be changed to its Maori equivalent, Aotearoa, and that the names of all cities, towns, and villages across the country be restored to their original forms by 2026. Ngarewa-Packer explained the rationale for the petition by stating, "New Zealand is a Dutch name. Even the Dutch changed their country's name from Holland to Netherlands." Co-leader Waititi, meanwhile, argues that the name Aotearoa would unite the country rather than divide it (The Guardian, 2021). The right-wing National Party, while reacting to this initiative, merely states that the proposal is a matter for a referendum (Hamuera, 2021). Let's note that discussions at this level are conducted with a spirit of maturity, tolerance, dialogue, and negotiation that is difficult to perceive in Turkey.

In New Zealand, where every idea can be freely expressed and discussed as long as it doesn't resort to violence, it appears that all elements of the political spectrum—from moderate New Zealand nationalism to radical right-wing nationalism, and from anti-separatist Maori nationalism more aligned with Maori awakening (renaissance) to separatist nationalism—are pushing New Zealand towards a decision point. The solution proposed by pro-democratization factions, who oppose separatist options, resembles the formula of Israeli Arab academic Asad Ghanem. While Ghanem accepts Israel as an ethnocratic regime, a Jewish state, he also doesn't see the indigenous Palestinians establishing an independent state of their own as feasible. His proposed remedy for this seemingly intractable problem, the "one-state, two-nation formula," could serve as a precedent for regions experiencing ethnic conflict and political crisis. According to this, a democratic state that recognizes group rights for societal differences is a sustainable way forward (Çakmak, 2014: 99).

As described by Elizabeth Rata, a sociologist of education from the University of Auckland, ethno-nationalism has political categories based on racial classification. This is nothing more than the belief that our personal, social, and political core identity is fixed in our ancestry. Here, the past determines the future, and identity is fixed in that past. In contrast, democratic-nationalism has only one political category: citizenship. Rata warns that these two contrasting approaches to how the nation is conceived, established, and governed are currently in contention, and New Zealand will be forced to choose which form of nationalism will characterize it by 2040 (Rata, 2021).

According to the Vision 2040 Roadmap (He Puapua) report (Charters et al.: 2019), which some consider to be "the end of democracy" (Newman, 2021), New Zealand faces three currents: the Rangiratanga current, representing Maori sovereignty and separatism; the Kawanatanga current, symbolizing the sovereignty of the Crown; and the Rite Tahi (equality) current, for all New Zealanders. The purpose is explained in the report's introduction: "He Puapua generally refers to a 'break' that signifies the breaking of waves. Here, it refers to the breaking of customary political and social norms and approaches. We hope that the breaking of the wave will represent a breakthrough in the Aotearoa Constitution based on te Tiriti o Waitangi and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

The claim that conditions are ripe for a radical transformation, including the restructuring of governance within the framework of "Maori self-determination" supported by some Pakeha, could disrupt the process of democratization striving for perfection. Ethno-political quests based on ancestral belonging rather than the principle of citizenship and equality could even be considered a regression. It is not doubted that the genetically and biologically based ethnic reality, rather than a purely cultural one, contradicts the rationale of political solutions that require rationality. For this reason, the sagacious segment of New Zealand society relies on the developing social practice of inclusive biculturalism, a hybrid Maori and settler-descendant culture enriched by various migrations.

In her article, Professor Rata reminds us that modern humans are autonomous, self-creating, self-governing, independent individuals who make choices (even choosing not to choose and not to be independent). This privilege of choice was not available to ancestors whose identities were locked into birth-attributed identities within traditional cultures. Nor is it available today for millions living under the guardianship of neo-traditionalist elites. This is similar to theocracies and oligarchies (e.g., elites of Tonga and Saudi kingdoms) who enjoy modernity themselves while using traditional beliefs as political control over others.

For many people, the meaning of who they are is closely tied to the idea of ethnic belonging. Some choose their primary social identity as Pakeha. Others of Maori descent choose Maori identity as their defining subjectivity. From a democratic perspective, the right to choose a defining identity, including an ethnicized or racialized identity, should be supported. There is no problem as long as such identities remain private choices exercised in the civic sphere alongside other like-minded individuals. In a democratic country, making this choice is an individual's right.

Biological determinism asserts that culture (the meaning given to actions) is caused by genetic inheritance (Güngör and Erdem, 2021: 664). Maori nationalism, like the idea of "Vedic science" advocated by Hindutva fundamentalism in India in the 90s (Nanda, 2004), believes that Maori science should form the basis of Maori society's education, because one's way of thinking, behaving, and relating is transmitted through blood, or originates from the spirit, "volkgeist," or Whakapapa (genealogy) principle (Gibson, 2021).

Circles that believe the extreme right-wing factions within New Zealand nationalism and radical Maori nationalism are mutually reinforcing extremes, consider the democratic political arena to be the place where New Zealanders meet as equal citizens of a united nation. According to this approach, the public sphere is, of course, shaped by the unique contributions of different groups, but it also expresses the unified meaning of a modern pluralistic social group identity, which is also a political entity. Politicizing ethnicity means creating a platform for ethno-nationalism, and this will only lead to ethnic categories, compartments, and ghettoization. In the end, it is inevitable to return to tensions, conflicts, and wars.

The He Puapua Report, which proposes a radical transformation based on fragmenting sovereignty in New Zealand, is compared to tragic examples of disintegration in recent history. In Rwanda, the ethnic doctrine of the 1957 Bahutu Manifesto was written and published by 11 highly educated individuals who were politically identified as Hutu (Hurst, 1957). Intellectuals provided the raw material for the ethnic ideologies that fueled violence in Bosnia and Serbia. Pol Pot began his campaigns of slaughter as soon as he returned from his education in Paris.

Ethnic fundamentalism is no better than countless other fundamentalisms that individuals impose on themselves to give meaning to their lives. When ethnicity becomes politicized, it can become a danger for societies regulated by democratic politics. Classification itself, and basing a system of governance on historical group membership rather than contemporary group membership by embarking on the path of ethno-nationalism, can lead to dangerous consequences. The democratic front in New Zealand is currently experiencing such a concern.

Translated by Gemini

References

• Agarwal, M. K., (May 2012). From Bharata to India. Bloomington-Indiana: iUniverse.
• Canbazoğlu, K. (2010). Tarihi Gelişimi, Kurumları ve İşleyişi Bakımından Yeni Zelanda Devleti’nin Hükümet Sistemi, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, (3), 321-334.
• Candidate calls for Southern Assembly. (2007). Scoop Politics, https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0707/S00284.htm (Accessed: 22.05. 2022)
• Catt, H. & Murphy, M. (2003). Sub-State Nationalism: A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Design. London: Routledge.
• Charters, C. et al. (2019). He Puapua, Report of the Working Group on a Plan to Realise the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
• Çakmak, D. (2014). Asad Ghanem’in Etnik Azınlık Taleplerini Anlama Modeli Üzerine, Tesam Akademi Dergisi, 1(2), 97-113.
• Dean, A. (2020). Nationalism, Modernism, and New Zealand, Journal of New Zealand Literature, Victoria University of Wellington, 38(1), 8-25.
• Diamond, J. (2010). Tüfek, Mikrop ve Çelik, İnsan Topluluklarının Yazgıları. 21. Basım, Ankara: TÜBİTAK.
• Gates, C. & John H. (2010). Ngai Tahu Reject Flag as ‘Trouble’, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3295467/Ngai-Tahu-reject-flag-as-trouble (Accessed: 22.05.2022)
• Gibson, K. (2021). Science Can’t Be Pākehā or Māori, It’s Just Science, https://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/125940471/science-cant-be-pkeh-or-mori-its-just-science (Accessed: 21.05.2022)
• Graham-McLay, C. (2018). Maori Language, Once Shunned, Is Having a Renaissance in New Zealand, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/world/asia/new-zealand-maori-language.html (Accessed: 20.05.2022)
• Güngör, S. & Ramazan E. (2021). Genetik Determinizme Dair Kavramsal Bir İnceleme, 19 Mayıs Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(3), 660-674.
• Hamuera, M. (2021) National Wants a Referendum on the Use of Aotearoa, https://www.renews.co.nz/national-wants-a-referendum-on-the-use-of-aotearoa/ (Accessed: 20.05.2022)
• Hegel, G. W. F. (2012). Tarihte Akıl: Tarih Felsefesine Bir Giriş. İçinde Doğan Özlem & Güçlü Ateşoğlu (Ed.), Tarih Felsefesi Seçme Metinler, İstanbul: Doğu Batı Yayınları.
• Henderson, J. T. & Bellamy, P. (2022). Democracy in New Zealand, International IDEA Country Study, University of Canterbury: Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.
• Hokowhitu, B. (2004). Tackling Māori Masculinity: A Colonial Genealogy of Savagery and Sport, The Contemporary Pacific, 16(2), 259-284.
• Human Rights Commission (Te Kahui Tika Tangata). (Act 1977). http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/hrca19771977n49294/ (Accessed: 19.05.2022)
• Hurst, R. (1957). Bahutu Manifesto, https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/bahutu-manifesto-1957/ (Accessed: 22.05.2022)
• İbn Sina/İbn Tufeyl. (2004). Hay bin Yakzan, Çev: M. Şerefeddin Yaltkaya ve Babanzade Reşid, N. Ahmet Özalp (Ed.), 5. Baskı, İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• İpek, N. (2015). Roma Hukukunda Hısımlık, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 21(1), 167-204.
• Kadri, H. K. (1991) Meşrutiyet’ten Cumhuriyet’e Hatıralarım, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Keenan, D. (2012). New Zealand Wars, New Zealand wars overview, Te Ara, The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-wars/page-1 (Accessed: 22.05.2022)
• Kennedy, J. C. (2007). Leadership and Culture in New Zealand, In Chhokar, Jagdeep; Brodbeck, Felix; House, Robert (eds.), Culture and Leadership Across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies, New York: Psychology Press, 397-432.
• Keser, G. (2019). Türk, Avustralya ve Yeni Zelanda Vatandaşlarının Çanakkale Savaşı Algıları, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Türkçe ve Sosyal Bilimler Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı.
• Levstik, L. S. (2001). Crossing the Empty Spaces: Perspective Taking In New Zealand Adolescents’ Understanding of National History in Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social Studies, edited by O. L. Davis Jr., E.A. Yeager, and S.J. Foster, 69-96, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
• McLintock, A. H. (1966). An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, Te Ara, https://teara.govt.nz/en (Accessed: 19.05.2022)
• Mann, J. (ed). (2017). Citizenship in Transnational Perspective: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, New York: Springer Publishing.
• Māori and the vote, Change in the 20th century, p. 3, https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/maori-and-the-vote/twentieth-century (Accessed: 22.05.2022)
• Māori Language. (Act 1987). Parliamentary Counsel Office, New Zealand Legislation, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0176/latest/whole.html (Accessed: 22.05.2022)
• McRae, Jane, (1984). The Function and Style of Ruunanga in Maori Politics, The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 93(3), 283-293.
• Hawkins, L. (2011). Memories of New Zealand and the Vietnam War, The war back home, https://vietnamwar.govt.nz/nz-vietnam-war/war-back-home (Accessed: 23.05.2022)
• Nanda, M. (2004). Postmodernism, Hindu nationalism and `Vedic science’, Frontline India’s National Magazine, https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30220434.ece (Accessed: 21.05.2022)
• Newman, M. The End of Democracy, New Zealand Centre for Political Research, https://www.nzcpr.com/the-end-of-democracy/ (Accessed: 23.05.2022)
• North, J. (1936). Gallipoli: The Fading Vision, London: Faber.
• Oam, A. B. (1961). The Spirit Of ANZAC, ANZAC Day Commemoration Committee, https://anzacday.org.au/spirit-of-anzac (Accessed: 20.05.2022)
• Orchiston, W. & Orchiston, D. L. (2017), The Maori Calendar of New Zealand: A Chronological Perspective, In Nha, I.-S., Orchiston, W., and Stephenson, F.R. (eds.), The History of World Calendars and Calendar-making, Proceedings of the International Conference in Commemoration of the 600th Anniversary of the Birth of Kim Dam. Seoul, Yonsei University Press, 57–78.
• Phillips, J. (2005). The New Zealanders, Te Ara, The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/the-new-zealanders (Accessed: 23.05.2022)
• Rata, E. (2021). Opinion: Ethno-Nationalism or Democratic-Nationalism: Which way ahead for New Zealand? https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/06/opinion-ethno-nationalism-or-democratic-nationalism-which-way-ahead-for-new-zealand.html (Accessed: 22.05.2022)
• Rauf, M. (1997). Edebî Hatıralar, İstanbul: Kitabevi.
• Rosenblatt, D. (2005). Thinking Outside the Billiard Ball: Cognatic Nationalism and Performing a Maori Public Sphere, Ethnohistory, 52(1), 111-136.
• Royal, Te Ahukaramū C. (2015). Hawaiki, Teara, The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/hawaiki (Accessed: 19.05.2022)
• Saylan, İ. (2017). İskoç Milliyetçiliğinin Dünü, Bugünü ve Birleşik Krallığın Geleceği, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 14(53), 91-109.
• Tanpınar, A. H. (1982). 19’uncu Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, İstanbul: Çağlayan Kitabevi.
• The Guardian. (2021). New Zealand Māori party launches petition to change country’s name to Aotearoa, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/14/new-zealand-maori-party-launches-petition-to-change-countrys-name-to-aotearoa (Accessed: 21.05.2022)
• The Truth About Aotearoa. (2021). Segregation in the south: The ugly truth about the town that supported apartheid, https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/2021/02/our-truth-history-aotearoa-new-zealand/ (Accessed: 20.05.2022)
• Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, Parliamentary Counsel Office, New Zealand Legislation, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/107.0/DLM435368.html (Accessed: 22.05.2022)
• Turner, A. (2012). Study Up, Bro: Kiwiana course to explore our culture, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7858478/Study-up-bro-Kiwiana-course-to-explore-our-culture (Accessed: 23.05.2022)
• Türk, H. (2014). Bir Servet-i Fünun Masalı: Yeni Zelanda Fikri ve Anadolu’ya Avdet, Turkish Studies, International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(3), 1499-1510.
• Yanık, C. (2012). Avustralya ve Yeni Zelanda’da Çokkültürlülüğün Değişen Yüzü, Kaygı, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, (19), 193-206.
• Yeniçeri, Ö. (2017). Doğu ve Batı: Bir Dünya İki Ütopya, Yeni Türkiye Dergisi, (95), 226-231.