Originally posted October 2, 2006. Reprised due to recent events, November 14 2007.

When I first posted this essay on the potential for civil conflict in New Zealand’s future – which was picked up by The Free Radical magazine – I had no idea that even as I wrote, a group of “activists” at a training camp in the Eastern Bay of Plenty were planning to make my worst predictions come true…

From Chris Trotter’s column in the Sunday Star Times, 27-08-06:

[If National had won the election] New Zealand would now be experiencing civil strife on a scale not seen since the 1860s… Social peace for a paltry half-million dollars? Strikes me as the most courageous and forgivable kind of corruption.

Trotter is partly right, but he has the threat reversed. His warning of a threat to social peace in New Zealand is not hyperbole, but the corrupt Labour Party is the cause, not the cure. Trotter seems to believe that the ends justify the means, but for the government to abandon accountability and transparency, believing itself to be above the law, threatens to undermine the legitimacy of the state. I argue that this could hold dire consequences for New Zealand.

Predictions of civil war are not new in this country, but they have usually been dismissed as fantasy. I have been reading Civil War and other optimistic predictions by speechwriter and blogger David Slack for background on this topic. NZ last saw major conflict in the 1860s, but sporadic conflict continued on a minor scale up to the 20th century, famously including passive resistance at Parihaka in 1881, and the narrowly averted “Dog Tax war” in Northland in 1898. The early years of the 20th century saw industrial strife, culminating in riots and gunfights on Wellington streets during the waterfront strike of 1913. The last Maori-Pakeha conflict was the 1916 raid on Maungapohatu, in which three Maori were killed.

Slack’s book includes a chapter inspired by the “Civil War” controversy in 2005. When the government responded to Maori coastal land claims by passing a law nationalising the foreshore and seabed, deep racial tensions were exposed. Senior civil servant Haami Piripi warned: “This country could be brought to its knees by internal conflict and perhaps civil war as a direct result of this bill.” Piripi’s controversial remarks were dismissed by the government at the time, and protesters against the bill were called “haters and wreckers” by Helen Clark. Yet the left resurrected these tensions during the 2005 election campaign, with some bloggers and columnists predicting “blood in the streets” if the supposedly racist National party won the election. And so according to Chris Trotter, the threat of civil war justified corrupt tactics by Labour during the election campaign – odd if you consider that the warning of civil war actually followed Labour’s foreshore and seabed seizure!

The discussion in Slack’s book ends on an optimistic note. The 1913 waterfront strike and 1981 Springbok tour protests are used as examples of situations that could, but didn’t escalate into civil war. But while Trotter argues that this was “sheer dumb luck,” Slack argues that:

Perhaps we’re not inclined here in New Zealand to that kind of reaction. Perhaps we tend to choose governments that manage to hold the extremes and maintain the peace. And perhaps no one has too little to lose.

The decline of good governance – a thowback to Muldoon?

I’m not so optimistic. I think NZ’s current government has encouraged the extremes and struggled to hold the centre. Think of the divisive and extreme rhetoric recently – Clark calling Brash “corrosive and cancerous,” and that master of diplomacy, Foreign Minister Winston Peters chiming in, calling Brash “evil.” Outside Parliament, extremist groups have gained in popularity. We’ve seen racially motivated attacks by a revitalized National Front, the entry of the Destiny Church into politics with a chilling, 10,000-strong, fist-waving, black-shirted demonstration on the steps of Parliament. At university, the Worker’s Party and other radical groups have been more active than ever, with posters expressing support for anti-US and anti-Israel terrorists. 9/11 conspiracy theories have gained popularity.
In my opinion, this rise of extremism means we face the highest risk of civil strife since Muldoon’s time. While Muldoon was wildly popular with conservatives, he alienated large parts of the population. His use of ridicule and accusations of homosexuality as political tactics raised tensions in Parliament, and heavy-handed police action against protestors and dawn raids against immigrants alienated the left. When he passed the SIS Act in 1978, giving the government increased powers of surveillance, thousands of protesters marched in the streets, and the SIS headquarters were damaged and later abandoned. The 1981 Springbok tour was marked by anti-apartheid protests, and protesters were brutally beaten by cops (as I saw in the film Patu! recently). Violence escalated to the point where protesters wore helmets and carried plywood shields with nails in.

Most seriously, there were a few terrorist incidents. Terrorism is practically unknown in New Zealand, but two fatal incidents happened during Muldoon’s time. In 1982, anarchist punk Neil Roberts obliterated himself while attempting to blow up the “Big Brother” police computer centre in Wanganui, causing Muldoon to warn of a national anarchist conspiracy. And in 1984, a bomb killed a caretaker at the Trades Hall in Wellington, during a major union meeting. The Labour party linked the bombing to “anti-union hysteria” stirred up by Muldoon, but the culprits were never identified.

Note: The film Sleeping Dogs, based on Smith’s Dream by CK Stead, is a thinly fictionalised version of the dictatorship and civil war which leftists feared during Muldoon’s time as Prime Minister – orchestrated terrorist acts, secret police, communist rebellion, and an Vietnam-style American intervention.

The impact of globalization

Globalization and communications technology have caused a relative increase in the power and capabilities of small groups. In 1981, about 40% of the population opposed the Springbok tour, and many people risked injury or even death to protest (no deaths occurred, but the severity of injuries meant death was always a possibility). Only one game was called off, after protestors invaded the field. The police were highly successful in controlling the protests, using barbed wire, barricades and batons to keep protestors out of test venues. Better communications would have prevented this. Imagine if the protests had been coordinated via text message, with email used to distribute information about police positions. Furthermore, the media was controlled to some extent. What if blogs had existed? Cellphone cameras? The true extent of the brutality was not widely known at the time, but blogs could have distributed shocking images. I doubt the government would have survived.

Also, the increased volume of trade makes it impossible to prevent trafficking in arms and drugs. This year, several caches of explosives and automatic weapons have been discovered during raids on methamphetamine distributors. What if such weaponry comes into the possession of extremist groups? While tensions may not be as high as during Muldoon’s time, extremist groups have far more potential to arm and organize themselves due to technology and globalization.

The current government – losing legitimacy

My worry is that the apathy of the wider public will empower violent extremists, removing the possibility for problems to be resolved in a peaceful way. The current government has shown itself to be corrupt and bent on remaining in power at all costs. They have attempted to stifle the opposition, using legislation as a weapon (eg removing the union exemption for the Exclusive Brethren), imprisoning Tim Selwyn for sedition after he distributed an anti-government pamphlet, and attacking the neutrality of civil servants (eg the Auditor-General). Misuse of taxpayer funds and attempted cover-ups of ministerial scandals have damaged public trust in the government. The key question is, how deep is the rot?

The consequences of a more general loss of legitimacy would be dire. What form might a loss of order take? Here are some ideas:

• Riots. A clear possibility. Look to the spontaneous cellphone-organized gathering in Cronulla and the SMS-coordinated arson attacks in Paris for examples of how they might play out.
• Ethnic violence. Initially this could take the form of occupations or sieges, like the non-violent Moutoa Gardens occupation, or the violent Oka Crisis in Canada (and similar conflicts involving indigenous people there). Any death could result in escalation. This is the scenario warned against during the foreshore and seabed controversy. Also, the National Front have been trying to stir up hatred.
• Crime. There has been a massive increase in violent crime recently.
• Assassination. There has been a lot of hatred directed at particular polical figures – Brash is “evil” and “cancerous,” private investigators are allegedly trying to smear Clark and her husband, etc. A supporter of one side might take matters into their own hands – this would be unprecedented in New Zealand.
• Terrorism. Domestic terrorism is a possibility which should not be ignored, even if radical Islam is seen as the primary threat. This could come from the left or right. Targeting of tourists would be particularly harmful.
• Sabotage of vital infrastructure. In my opinion, this is the worst long-term threat, given our aging infrastructure and reliance on foreign trade.

Posted by Phil on Wednesday, November 14th, 2007 at 1:00 pm.