Understanding culture

Multiculturalism, what is it, how do we understand it? What is culture?

Confusion around the idea of culture has caused us at times to fail in defending the very processes that built our way of life.

A liberal, western democracy, founded on individual freedom, has at core the following types of social processes,

1. Transparent democratic processes, one person one vote, for removing bad leaders without violence.
2. Transparent application of the law, judicial and police processes.
3. Commitment to nurture and allow every person to express their own spirit within the law. This commitment to personal freedom supported by a live and let live ethic.
4. Transparency in political decision making, with the individual's right to protest (but, again, within the law).
5. Separation of powers, so religion, economy, police, judiciary, legislation, and education all kept separate with rules and regulation surrounding conflicts of interest and privileged use of information (insider trading, and privacy act, for example).

There are likely other principles, but these fairly reflect the core of what makes a Western liberal democracy. I call these our 'social structure'; largely codified in law and regulation. We change any of this at our peril, for any such change will erode our freedoms.

What then, is culture? Within our liberal democratic framework we live as we choose, constrained only by the law, which is intended to be non-directive, broad as possible not constraining us, merely providing a framework within which we can get on with lives we choose. I call the way some people, some group; choose to live as their culture.

Culture is then the manner in which various groups choose to express their spirit within the overall social structure of our western liberal democracy.

So Caucasians do as they do Protestants and Catholics as they choose and greenies as they choose, etc.

Any people joining our social structure are not given the right to demand it be changed to accommodate them. The social structure is the core of our existence, and we must never lose sight of that.

People joining our social structure are welcome and encouraged within our social structure to build and rejoice in their culture, recognizing that in so doing they need rejoice in others living their cultures, side by side. This then is ‘multi-cultural’, better known as modern plural society. As expressed by Julia Gillard, PM of Australia, if they join us it is over to them to fit in, or exercise the wonderful right we all have, that is to leave.

What then, in New Zealand, is Maori?

Maori is one particular culture group no more important than any other, and at about 15% of the population, not even a big or important cultural grouping.

Today, in New Zealand, Maori, like Muslims around the world, need realise they just are not able to have their own way, and they need seriously grow up and get used to the fact of people living beside them who are different.

Rather than just celebrating within their preferred group, rejoicing in their view of their superior spirituality, all peoples need come to rejoice in the differences that abound, and wonderful array of spiritual and living choice open in the world, and which the very structure of our society encourages and nurtures.

We all need see the blaze of glory in the vast patchwork quilt that is modern society.

Bringing heart to our legislation

Imagine we committed to the idea we are a liberal, democratic society, committed to an egalitarian ethic, where people, all people stood equal, regardless of job, wealth, or power. Imagine we insisted this principle applied in assessing legislation. How might it work?

Consider the foreshore and seabed debate. How would the egalitarian principle reshape this legislation? First, it becomes the ‘natural water act’ applying to all lakes, rivers, streams and seabed and foreshore.

1. All riparian/ownership rights immediately revoked.
2. All native customary rights immediately revoked.
3. Persons controlling land that blocks access required to provide four feet of walkway, fencing and maintenance by councils.
4. All waterways, all beds of all natural water, and for a nominated distance around all natural water, held in trust by parliament. Only unanimous vote can change this legislation.
5. All lake, rivers and streams to have public access, land to be provided, without compensation, councils to enable the access way.
6. Public accesses for beaches, say every 500 meters, for inland water, say every 2 kilometers.

The egalitarian principle could ensure that no amount of wealth, no creed, race, or any supposed prior claim will erode fundamental rights of us all, and access to recreational features of our wonderful country is one of those rights.

Giving democracy a soul

New Zealand is a western liberal democracy, committed to individual freedom. From our pioneering roots also comes an egalitarian ethic where no-one is better, we stand eye-to-eye, an ethic eroded today, and in need of resurrection.

Why not define ourselves as a western liberal democracy, where all stand equal before the law, and where we strive to ensure the social ethic reflects our commitment to our liberal egalitarian democratic principle.

We could then use our egalitarian democratic principle to assess the quality of legislation, forcing our politicians to respect the very fabric of our society that enables them to exist as they do.

As Egypt crumbles, China clamps down on freedom of information, and politicians in other authoritarian states watch nervously, it is a good time to cement our commitment to the principles and processes protecting our freedoms, and enabling us to remove poor leaders without violence or bloodshed.

The principle is this egalitarian democratic principle, which if embraced by us can ground our society. Politicians will not embrace it, nor will those with power and wealth likely eroded by the principle.

We need demand it politicians’ will follow. If we choose, we can bring them to heel.

Isn’t democracy grand?