It is interesting to view the election as a debate within te ao Māori. The simple definition of being Māori is having whakapapa, so we have a broad spectrum: David Seymour of ACT, a right wing party wanting to re-situate the tiriti, Marama Davidson of the Greens who are environmentally austere and socially left (capital gains tax, free dental care, guaranteed minimum income); Te Pāti Māori who as well as advocating for tino rangatiratanga are anti royal, anti US imperialism and want NZ out of Five Eyes – they also are socially left, into capital gains and wealth taxes; Winston Peters and Shane Jones of NZ First who are populist and opportunist, playing an anti-Māori card – it was once anti-Asian but Winston goes with the flow of grumpiness – and also focusing on Northland; conspiracy ‘Christian’ oddities like Brian Tāmaki; and then Māori in the mainstream parties, with a Labour Māori caucus probably responsible for the Labour Government’s co-governance strategies and other cultural pushes; and with National Māori members seemingly happy with the National trajectory.

This spectrum is pretty much reproduced within the general electorate, although I would suspect the PI electorate is more Labour oriented and the Asian electorate more to the right and, interestingly, there is no anti-imperialist voice within the general electorate. In fact there is virtually no debate on foreign policy. But generally, I might assume, that if tauiwi were to disappear, a post- colonial election would not be radically different in terms of policy stances. Of course it might be argued that this is the result of colonisation but the infrastructure of colonisation can’t just disappear – it’s a lengthy walk through the alps with a sack of milk powder in the pack.

In which case I am left with the tiriti and an indigenous past which can become romanticisms, but which, instead, could become catalysts for the emergence of a post-capitalist culture of revolutionary change.