Politics

[moka]

October 14: Two very different outcomes for Indigenous people.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/19-10-2023/october-14-two-very-different-outcomes-for-indigenous-people

On the same day the unapologetic Māori voice in New Zealand’s parliament grew, Australians voted down their ‘Voice’ referendum.

What is constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples?
Essentially, it means protecting the rights of an indigenous population inside a country’s political system – like its constitution or parliament. It’s crucial for empowering Indigenous peoples during the reality of modern-day colonisation.
Sixty percent of Australians voted against recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ rights within the foreign political system that rules their homeland.

Despite New Zealand electing a National government – a party that many consider less likely to empower Māori than Labour – the unbridled tāngata whenua voice in parliament got louder. Te Pāti Māori, parliament’s self-described unapologetic indigenous voice, increased its power by winning four Māori electorates, three of which were taken off Labour. (There is a possibility Te Pāti Māori could win two more after special votes are counted.)

One reason why the political power of Te Pāti Māori grew this election is because the rights of tāngata whenua are constitutionally enshrined. An example is the Māori seats, of which Te Pāti Māori won a majority. Australia’s referendum voted down constitutionally enshrining the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people.

Without Māori seats, Te Pāti Māori may not be in parliament at all (they’ve never won a general electorate). Although New Zealand is not perfect at respecting tāngata whenua, we have a better foundation than Australia because He Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Māori seats are – for the most part – accepted parts of our political system.

On the other hand, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights aren’t acknowledged in Australian politics, and they only gained universal voting rights in 1962 (compared to 1893 for Māori). To reckon with its troubled history of colonisation, Australia must enshrine and respect the political rights of its First Nations people – but the referendum’s result perhaps highlights the country’s continuing refusal to redress the evils of its past.

Tākuta Ferris, a rising star of Te Pāti Māori, summed up how many tāngata whenua feel about Act’s referendum. “The fact that we’re talking about referendums on the Treaty just demonstrates how much more we have to learn as a country. You can’t referendum a Treaty away. It’s a permanent fixture of the constitution of our country, and it is not going anywhere.”

[moka]

The above article was a Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air.
I had never actually taken the time to investigate the funding. But it seems like a there was a lot of misinformation and disinformation about the funding, which was set up to help support business through Covid.

https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/funding/journalism-funding/

Public Interest Journalism Fund (now closed)
The $55m Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) was made available by the government in 2020 to support news media through the COVID-19-induced downturn. Funding was provided to NZ On Air to administer until 30 June 2023. The PIJF was a specific ring-fenced fund that was designed to provide targeted, short to medium-term support for roles, projects and industry development.

The PIJF provided seven rounds of funding, with funding for 73 projects, 219 roles and 22 industry development projects in total, and supporting journalism across the length of the motu. As at April 2023, it has seen more than 60,000 pieces of news content created that have had more than 134 million total views.
Some of those roles and projects are funded to run until January 2026, so we will continue to see the legacy of the fund, and its investment in the sustainability of the media sector, for some time yet.

ROUND 6
Te Rito 2023, NZME, up to $1,719,407- to provide journalism training and work experience for 12 cadets from Māori, Pacific and diverse backgrounds.
Tagata Pasifika 2023, Sunpix, up to $2,019,190. A 2023 season of the flagship Pasifika current affairs and news programme.
RNZ Asia Unit, RNZ, up to $1,114,672 for one year of a two-year project. A new unit producing news and current affairs content in Mandarin, Hindi and English, for Asian communities of Aotearoa.
Newshub Nation 2023, 42 x 60min, including Budget and election specials, for Discovery NZ, up to $999,781. A weekly political current affairs programme that provides political news, interviews, and analysis.
Q + A with Jack Tame 2023, 40 x 60min plus 1 x 118min special for TVNZ, up to $842,200. TVNZ’s leading political current affairs programme that tackles newsworthy political issues alongside debates and interviews.
The Hui Series 8, Great Southern Television, up to $737,036. An additional season of the award-winning weekly bilingual Māori current affairs programme that confronts difficult subjects, exposes injustice, and celebrates Māori success.

[causecelebre]

Cash for Coverage is an appalling thing for any govt to do at any time, let alone in an election cycle. No government should be providing funds to any media and direct how those funds are to be translated into media. The state should also have no interest in the media TVNZ, RNZ etc. It opens up the potential for gross manipulation.

[Aaron]

Cash for Coverage is an appalling thing for any govt to do at any time, let alone in an election cycle. No government should be providing funds to any media and direct how those funds are to be translated into media. The state should also have no interest in the media TVNZ, RNZ etc. It opens up the potential for gross manipulation.

And Rupert Murdoch has shown how leaving it to the private sector results in a better outcome. Facebook or social media news feeds and share trader have undoubtedly improved peoples understanding of events and the world around them as well.

Private businesses are so much more transparent and less opaque than anything govt funded.

Mind you Goebbels puts forward a strong case for govt and media not being joined at the hip.

The more I think about it the more I regret making a comment as my understanding of the issue is limited.

[moka]

The reason why America has become 'uniquely stupid' | RNZ

The last 10 years in America have been "uniquely stupid," social psychologist Jonathan Haidt says.

And Haidt is laying the blame squarely on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. In a recent essay in The Atlantic, Haidt wrote that it was not Americans who were getting stupid as individuals; rather USA’s institutions. Haidt, who is professor of ethical leadership at NYU-Stern, argues that social media is allowing people to intimidate others and make them afraid of public consequences for anything they say.

And that makes institutions structurally stupid, because people have stopped dissenting, questioning and challenging. All seemed well until about 2014, he says.

Originally a useful tool, social media is now inimical to democracy, he says, because it allows no place for considered debate.

“To have a deliberative democracy, there has to be some space for people to deliberate, to talk about the issues of the day. That doesn't mean it's going to be friendly or civil. It can have anger, while there can be anger, there should not be intimidation, there should not be threats of violence, people should not have to worry that they're going to be fired or attacked physically for stating their opinion on an ordinary issue.”

The utopian vision of an interconnected and informed world has turned into a nightmare, Haidt says. “We, the users, are not the customers, we’re the product. And so, the platforms are designed to keep us on, to extract as much of our attention as possible and the best way to keep our attention is to make us angry.”

Haidt believes a lack of informed debate is making America’s institutions stupid.
“The miracle of British institutions to me, the British gave us our institutions, which we modified, are that they are pretty good at channelling dissent, managing conflict and turning it into something better than people could have created as individuals. That's what a jury does. That's what a legislature does. That's what an academic community is supposed to do.”

“Social media comes in and makes us afraid of dissent. Because if you tell a joke, if you raise a question, if you even so much as tweet, a link to a study, an academic study, that questions an orthodoxy about race, or gender, you can be fired for that.

“When critics go silent, the institution gets stupid.”

He believes social media should be reined in, in particular anonymity should not be allowed.
“I'm focused on two problems. One is the decline of democracy. And the other is the skyrocketing rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide of teenagers, especially teenage girls.”

[moka]

I was motivated to post this discussion on Fascism after listening to about half a dozen interviews or speeches by Trump’s running mate J D Vance.

https://www.theindiaforum.in/society/why-fascism-rise-world-over

Why Fascism is on the Rise the World Over. February 01 2023

Fascist ideas strike deep roots in the collective psyche and persist even in societies where they were once utterly disavowed. In Europe, as elsewhere globally, there has been a steady drift towards majoritarianism and rejection of liberal democratic values.

Fascist ideas are mostly abstract and intangible, appealing to emotion rather than to the intellect. A cult of tradition or calling on the past does not require an examination of history or if such a past ever existed. Similarly, fascism readily embraces technology and glorifies it, while simultaneously rejecting modernism or the spirit of scientific enquiry. It harks back to some mythical past, and evokes national pride and historic grievances. It appeals to a majoritarian identity, which must find an antagonist, foreign or domestic, to project as an existential threat to that identity.

These ideas have little to do with the daily life and experience of the broad mass of people but serve to deflect and distract.
William Reich was among the first to consider the inherent conditions in society as the basis for the growth of fascism. His central insight was that widespread support for fascist movements arose from the “mass psychology of fascism.” This innate tendency which inclines people towards an authoritarian ideology came from the authoritarian and patriarchal roots of a society, he argued.

“Fascist mentality is the mentality of the subjugated “little man” who craves authority and rebels against it at the same time. It is not an accident that all fascist dictators stem from the milieu of the little reactionary man.” (Reich 1942: 11)

[Honour and duty] while important to their moral compass were not necessarily required in actual practice.
The social milieu he described was that of a class of petty traders, independent craftsmen, and the petty bourgeoisie in Germany in the aftermath of the First World War. This class had come of age in an authoritarian monarchy which was conservative and intensely patriarchal.

They venerated morality, honour, and duty towards the nation and society. While these phrases are a staple of fascist propaganda, the masses saw them not as propaganda but as an expression of their own values.
This class was also amoral. Minor dishonesty in business or trade was a part of everyday life. Abstract ideals, while important to their moral compass, were not necessarily required in actual practice.

For Reich, it was precisely these contradictions which were at the heart of the mass psychology of fascism.
An individual in present-day society is apparently not that different from the “subjugated little man” of Wilhelm Reich, at once subservient and rebellious. The similarity surfaces in everyday populist attitudes, which are decidedly proto-fascist in outlook.

Populist attitudes amongst people – as distinguished from politics of populism –is a “thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people.” (Mudde and Kaltwasser 2017: 6).

[moka]

https://www.theindiaforum.in/society/why-fascism-rise-world-over

An authoritarian figure who promises simple solutions to sweep away all the social evils is seen as the one who understands and reflects the people’s values and fears. Contemporary politics has seen the mass adulation of self-proclaimed strong leaders – a Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Bolsonaro or Modi – an adulation which is quite independent of the character of the personalities themselves. An imagined golden age is sought in the past.

These populist attitudes are not antithetical to democracy, indeed quite the reverse. They could be seen as expressions of basic tenets of democracy but also a sense of disillusionment with the institutions of democracy.

Difficult choices and compromises inherent in a democratic society lose out when confronted with populist solutions.
Modern societies face a number of problems, and more importantly, involve choices. Constitutionalism entails compromises. Equity demands due share for all in equal measure. However, the difficult choices and compromises inherent in a democratic society lose out when confronted with populist solutions that could cut through the tangled mess of constitutionalism. Corruption and failure of the political elite contribute in no small measure. There is also considerable evidence that increased representation of members of the traditional minority is experienced by dominant groups as threatening in various ways. (Stanley 2020: 94-95)

Although inequality in income and wealth may have increased substantially, support for right-wing movements is spread across a wide spectrum of society. A shared value system transcends contradictory and, even conflicting, class interests. Society seems to be divided in terms of value systems which are nominally and somewhat lazily categorised as conservative or liberal.

That there could be intrinsic conditions in the collective psyche resonates to a surprising extent in the current context. When we explore the underlying causes or drivers as it were, it boils down to two key elements: the politics of identity and the politics of resentment.

Italian fascism was the first right-wing totalitarian movement in Europe. It was followed by several such movements over the next two decades with varying degrees of success. While these movements differed in their particular forms, they shared some common characteristics: a leadership cult, a semi-militaristic organisation, an ideology of hypernationalism, and exclusion.

Fascist regimes systematically undermined the rule of law, and the institutions of liberal democracy and replaced them with repression and arbitrary rules. State power became an instrument of violence to perpetuate power and to crush ‘the enemy’.

While some of these characteristics can be seen in contemporary authoritarian regimes, the similarities with classical fascism end there. What distinguishes the New Despotism (Kean 2020) is the use of the constitutional system and legal structure, democratic tools, laws, and mass media to bend society towards its ideology.

The ‘new despots’ do not dispense of democratic trappings, but. seek to legitimise their actions through popular sanction. For them, it is not sufficient that the people acquiesce or tolerate their policies or actions, they must enthusiastically endorse and rejoice in them. The more brazen the lies and deception, the greater must be the mass support and the denial of objective reality.

In other words, the politics of mass fascism are deliberately nurtured. Its people cannot be victims, but must be willing participants in the process. The supporters of the regime are not merely content to support it but also actively demonise and attack the real or imagined enemies of the regime. That is undoubtedly the fascism of the masses.