Seizing the cultural and political moment and catching fish: Political development of Māori in New Zealand, the Sealord Fisheries Settlement, and social movement theory

Abstract

Why did Māori issues and treaty grievances become politically salient in the 1970s? I argue that contemporary social movement theory, which examines both political opportunities and the use of cultural resources by emerging movements helps to answer this question. A unique moment coalesced in the 1970s and 1980s, bringing together favorable political and cultural variables for Māori not altogether present in previous eras. I locate the negotiation of the 1992 Sealord Fisheries Settlement in this cultural and political moment and evaluate the social and political consequences for Māori and the New Zealand Government.

Notes

1 Although the Declaration of Independence of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand of 1835 is cited as an example of unified Māori sovereignty, it did not establish a pan-Māori authority (Ward, 1995, p. 12).

2 As one parliamentarian argued “things had now come to pass that it was necessary either to exterminate the Natives or civilize them” and the Native Schools Act would “avoid the cost of further wars” (Simon, 1998, p. 19).

3 The negative consequences of closed negotiations are well documented in the international relations literature (Keohane, 1984) and the negotiation literature (Laws, 1999). Closed negotiations create asymmetrical access to information and cause the weaker party to lose trust in the process. This may present an insurmountable obstacle for implementation and lead to alienation of the representatives from their own constituencies. The Sealord negotiations suffered both of these negative consequences as detailed in the outline of consequences below.