Statesmanly Sellout Smackdown

Eddie over at The Standard reiterates the claim that the Maori Party are sellouts for being in a Government with National. Now, that’s not, in and of itself, an unreasonable claim. But does it really hold up to serious scrutiny?

He says:

Well, Tariana, if you don’t like to be labeled a sell-out, simple solution: don’t be a member of a government that’s cutting workers’ rights, doing nothing to protect jobs, gutting environment standards, taking away democracy in Auckland, cutting communities out of development decisions, and slashing education.

Fair enough. Those are all things one could honestly believe about the National Government (whether they are totally accurate or not is irrelevant).

However, what are the alternatives for the Maori Party? A return to “last cab off the rank” status? It’s not like they haven’t made it clear at times when they disagree with Government policy – you only have to read the press statement from Pita Sharples following a Government statement against having dedicated Maori seats on the supercity council.

They are making it clear (in my mind at least) that being a part of the Government does not mean they agree with all their policy, while in return they are gaining – at the very least – the perception of being in a position of power.

I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind making a different decision to that made by the Maori Party. It’s not “selling out”, it’s “swallowing dead rats” in order to get some influence in return. It’s very, very hard to point to tangible policy returns to your constituency from sitting in opposition pining for a shot at the big time – and any policy return is better than none.

So yes, maybe they are sellouts to some degree. But better a sellout than a limp-wristed meerkat waiting for a change in government to offer them a chance they may well not actually get. Maybe the option to go with National was a devils bargain – whether you agree depends on your political views – but it’s pretty certain that they made the right choice in that bargain.

EDIT:

From Duncan in the Comments Thread on The Standard:

It’s not just the deal with National, it’s the complete lack of critical distance from Turia and Sharples. They sound like they’re in love with National the way they talk. That’s not how their people voted.

Now that’s valid. It’s perfectly OK to say they aren’t standing up enough for what they believe in and vocal enough in criticising policy they are against – again, whether you agree is a matter of opinion. But that criticism is certainly not the same as criticising their being a part of the Government at all.