The crisis of policy failure or the moral crisis of an idea: colonial politics in contemporary Australia and New Zealand

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/00323187.2022.2099915
Dominic O’Sullivan
{"title":"The crisis of policy failure or the moral crisis of an idea: colonial politics in contemporary Australia and New Zealand","authors":"Dominic O’Sullivan","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2022.2099915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT When analysing Indigenous public policy, crisis is best seen as the moral crisis of an enduring idea rather than the crisis of sporadic and unconnected instances of policy failure. In Australia and New Zealand, states use manufactured crises of Indigenous personal deficiencies to justify colonial authority. A justification which may be countered by positioning colonialism itself as the point of crisis. From this perspective, the crisis in Indigenous public policy is not resolved by the state becoming better at policy-making or more attentive to the egalitarian distribution of public resources. Instead, it is in the non-colonial possibilities of Indigenous self-determination that paths beyond crisis may lie. In practical terms, by ensuring spaces of independent Indigenous authority alongside spaces of distinctive culturally framed participation in the public life of the state. The potential for such arrangements in Australia is discussed with reference to a proposed First Nations’ Voice to Parliament and possible treaties between First Nations and the state. For New Zealand, their potential is discussed with reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi’s affirmation of independent Māori authority (rangatiratanga) and substantive state citizenship.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2022.2099915","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT When analysing Indigenous public policy, crisis is best seen as the moral crisis of an enduring idea rather than the crisis of sporadic and unconnected instances of policy failure. In Australia and New Zealand, states use manufactured crises of Indigenous personal deficiencies to justify colonial authority. A justification which may be countered by positioning colonialism itself as the point of crisis. From this perspective, the crisis in Indigenous public policy is not resolved by the state becoming better at policy-making or more attentive to the egalitarian distribution of public resources. Instead, it is in the non-colonial possibilities of Indigenous self-determination that paths beyond crisis may lie. In practical terms, by ensuring spaces of independent Indigenous authority alongside spaces of distinctive culturally framed participation in the public life of the state. The potential for such arrangements in Australia is discussed with reference to a proposed First Nations’ Voice to Parliament and possible treaties between First Nations and the state. For New Zealand, their potential is discussed with reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi’s affirmation of independent Māori authority (rangatiratanga) and substantive state citizenship.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政策失败的危机或一种思想的道德危机:当代澳大利亚和新西兰的殖民政治
摘要在分析土著公共政策时,危机最好被视为一个持久理念的道德危机,而不是零星和不相关的政策失败案例的危机。在澳大利亚和新西兰,各州利用人为制造的原住民个人缺陷危机来证明殖民权威的正当性。可以通过将殖民主义本身定位为危机点来反驳这一理由。从这个角度来看,土著公共政策的危机并不是通过国家变得更善于决策或更注重公共资源的平等分配来解决的。相反,正是在土著自决的非殖民可能性中,才有可能走出危机。在实践中,通过确保独立的土著权力空间与独特的文化框架参与国家公共生活的空间。在澳大利亚,此类安排的潜力将参照拟议的原住民议会之声以及原住民与国家之间可能签订的条约进行讨论。对于新西兰来说,他们的潜力是参照te Tiriti o Waitangi对独立的毛利人权威(rangatiratanga)和实质性国家公民身份的肯定来讨论的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Science
Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Political Science publishes high quality original scholarly works in the broad field of political science. Submission of articles with a regional focus on New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific is particularly encouraged, but content is not limited to this focus. Contributions are invited from across the political science discipline, including from the fields of international relations, comparative politics, political theory and public administration. Proposals for collections of articles on a common theme or debate to be published as special issues are welcome, as well as individual submissions.
期刊最新文献
Party priorities in different pre-election New Zealand policy statements, 1984-2023 Strategic uses of constitutional originalism by conservatives in US gun politics and beyond Democracy, impartiality and the online political activity of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public sector employees: similarities and differences with other Westminster countries Large Language Models Can Argue in Convincing Ways About Politics, But Humans Dislike AI Authors: implications for Governance Settler memory and Indigenous counter-memories: narrative struggles over the history of colonialism in Aotearoa New Zealand
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1