In raising the prospect of a replacement flag but postponing the debate until after the election, John Key has scored two domestic political points.
First, the Prime Minister’s recent ‘flag’ speech at Victoria University featured positive yet soft nationalism to outflank the negative and harder nationalism of New Zealand First. That’s no small achievement because Winston Peters is emerging as a likely kingmaker after the September poll.
Second, endorsing the idea of a new flag but delaying the debate until after the election is an astute mix. Mr Key has grabbed some initial benefits but denied National’s opponents the chance to make much of the issue as the campaign season approaches.
Raising the flag question is also in tune with the Key government’s international purposes. With a commercially-focused foreign policy where our terms of trade are the big objective, Mr Key obviously wants New Zealand’s flag to be a better brand image. ‘We want a design that says ’New Zealand’, he told his mid-March audience, ‘without a word being spoken’.
And at a time when New Zealand is bidding for a United Nations Security Council seat, the Prime Minister has also drawn on the mix of fact and mythology that constitutes our foreign policy image. ‘We are fiercely protective of our independent foreign policy’, he said, and we want ‘a flag that is only New Zealand’s’.
The idea that our flag is not our own may be news to some. But then there is the challenge of distinguishing the New Zealand flag from the Australian variety. And there is the prominent Union Jack in our flag’s top left hand corner.
Hence the possibility that New Zealand’s distinct identity is being hidden under the flags of two of its larger and traditional partners. Mr Key wants a new flag in keeping with a more confident New Zealand whose achievements should not in any way be hidden on the international stage.
But there are some downsides. First, a reputation for independence is generated by deeds and not by changing formal symbols. Talking about an independent foreign policy and carrying it out are different things.
Second, a flag developed from a time when we were developing our international personality may remind us that independence does not mean self-reliance. Something that reminds us of close links with Britain and Australia may be worth holding onto.
Third, we might want to eschew a flag debate in order to guard ourselves against the unintentional effects of nationalism. This may also mean toning down what happens whenever the All Blacks play. And it means being careful that we don’t turn Gallipoli into a shrine.
The main purpose of nationalism, and perhaps the only legitimate one, is self-determination. New Zealand achieved sovereign independence decades ago but it was not something we were very good at. Indeed it took New Zealand 16 years to recognise Britain’s 1931 Statute of Westminster.
I’m rather proud of that non-exuberant approach—independence without all the bells and whistles helps makes New Zealand a friendly place to be for all comers. There are too many contemporary reminders for comfort of the hazards of nationalism, including amongst some of our leading trading partners in Asia.
If there is a strong sentiment in favour of changing the flag it may still be advisable for an incoming government to go ahead with the debate after the election. But I am not sure if that current of opinion is there in the first place. Best then for all of our politicians to resist the temptation to encourage it.