Leading Change: Potatau I, Maori King

Potatau
I, Maori King

Unique History

On May 2
1859, Te Wherowhero was elevated to the status of king and took the
name Potatau Te Wherowhero. Already in his 80’s, he reigned
for 1 year and 54 days before he died on June 25^th 1860
(Cox, L., 1993). He was the first Maori king, leader of a movement
that sought to maintain the sovereignty of Maori and legitimise the
customary systems of ownership and governance of assets. The
Kingitanga movement represented a massive change in Maori society,
that being the elevation of one person to be the voice of all the
tribes and to unite them as a figurehead of Maori nationalism. While
this was a new concept in Maori society, it was a change that worked
in concert with the existing customary economic and legal systems
that had been established for a millennia. Rather than an upheaval
of the old system, the Kingitanga movement created a new layer of
governance that was based on the old but allowed the development of a
unified Maori society that could provide a significant political
response to colonial policy.

Background, decisions and
consequences

The period
1850-1870 saw a number of significant upheavals in Maori-Pakeha
relations. When Governor Grey returned to New Zealand for the second
time in 1861, he began instituting the runanga policies created in
the Native District Regulations Act 1858. These policies were
designed to assimilate Maori into British society and simplify the
interaction of Maori & Pakeha in the political process. The
outcomes of this change would be to have Maori & Pakeha living
under the same laws and to reduce the number of distinct Maori groups
that the government had to deal with. Problems arose almost
immediately because the runanga “districts” were not
based upon whakapapa, resulting in the alienation of families from
the resources that they had traditionally controlled. Leadership
patterns also changed under this system. Rather than traditional
leaders based on family or tribal relationships, leaders were now
appointed by the government based on their geographic location. This
gave the government the power to control who the leaders were and
their leadership style. Traditional leadership roles and
responsibilities towards the previously existing groups were no
longer involved on the political process. This process has not
stopped to this day, with the Te Rünanga o Ngäi Tahu Act
1996 being a typical example of the adoption of Western bureaucratic
politics over traditional Maori values (Carter, L., 2003).

Another
powerful piece of legislation was the “Half Caste” act
that wa used to define who was and who was not Maori. The principle
of Whakapapa is that whenever two families are joined together then
all their extended families are part of the group. The half caste
legislation broke up this system by making legal distinctions about
who was considered Maori. Based on these distinctions, Maori people
who were participating in Whakapapa or runanga based groups were no
longer included in those groups and had been converted to Pakeha
ethnicity by law (Carter, L., 2003).

The
Kingitanga movement sought to counter these influences by creating a
movement that would, to some extent, unite Maori in a common cause.
The idea of creating a monarchy in New Zealand had been originally
discussed as early at 1825. In 1854 a Waikato Chief Piri Kawau was
travelling with Governor Grey when he witnessed the plight of the
indigenous peoples of South Africa while staying in Cape Town. Upon
his return to New Zealand he immediately wrote to Maori leaders
urging the establishment of king so as to avert the possibility of
the South African scenario developing in New Zealand (Cox, L., 1993).

Firstly,
the Kingitanga movement created an effective focus for burgeoning
Maori nationalism, which clearly identified who Maori were and
formalised their own governance principles. Secondly, realising that
Maori had been alienated from the constitutional process because of
the electoral regulations, the Kingitanga movement formed a structure
which represented their own constitutional sovereignty. The
intention was that the system would operate along side the Pakeha
government with equal status and protected by the Queen Victoria as
discussed in the Treaty of Waitangi. Thirdly, the Kingitanga
movement would provide a united front against the appropriation of
land by Pakeha. Lastly, the Kingitanga movement would provide the
framework for a common law and justice system for Maori, the
intention of which was to end warlike reciprocity and to provide a
peaceful means of dispute resolution (Cox, L., 1993).

A key
aspect of the Kingitanga movement was the Maori use of Whakapapa as
the primary way to deciding who would be appointed king. The man who
was chosen, Te Wherowhero, met all the Maori criteria for leadership.
Firstly, he was an accomplished warrior, both as a general and in
hand to hand combat. Secondly, he was a religious man, providing the
important spiritual connection to the role of king. Most
importantly, he was connected to strong Whakapapa that included most
tribes in New Zealand, legitimising him in Maori eyes because of his
family connections to most geographic localities in New Zealand (Cox,
L., 1993). This allowed Maori to retain the use of whakapapa as the
primary ownership system, maintaining the existing ownership
structures. In terms of agency theory, the king is the agent of all
the families that he belongs to and the families control the assets
and resources in their dominions (Carter, L., 2003). Another
important consideration was that Te Wherowhero had an existing
relationship with Governor Grey and maintained a residence in
Auckland where he would meet with the governor and maintain a dialog
with the Pakeha government (Jones, P. T. H., 1959)

There are
a number of obvious contradictions between these approaches.
Although the interests were mush the same, particularly with regards
to the maintenance of law and order, the two system approach was in
direct contradiction to the one system approach the colonial
government wanted to achieve. The runanga system was based on
arbitrarily drawn boundaries that separated families from each other
and the resources they controlled, whereas the Kingitanga system
recognised whakapapa as the source of the rights of ownership.

Business Lessons

There are
a number of business lessons that need to be heeded for anyone
wishing to do business with Maori authorities or other Maori
structures.

Firstly,
the principles of whakapapa as related to ownership and control of
assets needs to be understood to ensure that you are dealing with the
right people in regards to these matters. It is not enough to go to
the government prescribed authority when working with
Maoriorganisations, you also need to consider the guardians of the
resource you wish to discuss and that means going to see the people
of the marae who manage it (Carter, L., 2003).

Secondly,
modern Maori leaders have dual roles of equal importance to both the
state created apparatus and the traditional organisation structures.
Mark Solomon, chairman of the Ngai Tahu trust, explained this best
when he described his dual role as being the Chief Executive Officer
of Ngai Tahu Corporation and also a leader of the Kaikoura people.
The effect of this is that there are two groups you need to deal with
when approaching a Maori organisation (Carter, L., 2003).

References

Carter,
L., J., (2003) Whakapapa and the State, Phd Thesis, Auckland
University.

Cox, L.,
1993. The Search for Maori Political Unity, Oxford University
Press,

Oxford.

Jones,
P.T.H, 1959, King Potatau, Polynesian Society, Wellington

Further Reading

Curnow,
J., Hopa, N., McRae, J., 2002. Rere atu, taku manu! Auckland
University

Press, Auckland.

Winiata,
M., 1967. The Changing role of the Leader in Maori Society,

Blackwood And Janet Paul, Auckland.