Chiefs Lose Power

Te Ao Hou, October 1956, Page 12

Chiefs Lose Power Notwithstanding all this, could not the Maoris have gone on on the lands they occupied on a communal agricultural or even pastoral basis—to a greater extent than in fact happened? In my view this was impossible because the old system of social government was breaking down, and there was nothing to replace it as yet. Under the older system, there was a coherent will in the community, expressed finally perhaps through the chief or chiefs, but nevertheless naturally flowing from all. Management on details would be vested in the chief or such other person as might be delegated. As settlement spread, however, and employment could be obtained either with settlers, local authorities or Government contractors, the relatively tight group fell apart. Some at least of the men sought work with a cash payment, or if not for that for the adventure and interest of novel ways. There was, in fact, little to hold them together. The office of chieftainship became more and more a ceremonial status and pakeha law began to permeate the tribal settlement. The ultimate authority of force was little by little prohibited. The slaves were now free men and had an interest in maintaining their changed status. This short essay must omit to deal with the effect of the wars which did not touch all districts or even a majority of them. The Waikato, Taranaki, the East Coast and Bay of Plenty were affected but some to a minor degree only. Notwithstanding the temporary tightening of tribal ranks around the chiefs and men of influence it seems that even these episodes would in the long run accelerate rather than reverse the decadence of the corporate entity that once existed. The more travelling involved, the long absences from tribal lands, the loss of those lands and the settlement on them of pakeha—all these spelt the end of the communal working group. It seems unlikely that the preservation of the communal type of title would, by itself, have held together the tribal or hapu community as a working and living group. Perhaps there could have been a middle course—something short of a title vested in all the owners in defined shares. Possibly an incorporated body such as is common today, managed by a committee of management composed in the main of the recognised leaders of families. Such an arrangement would be closer in spirit to the ancient ways. But even here, there is room to think that the other forces already mentioned might have been too strong. It must have been a necessary part of any changeover in title that the membership of the tribe or title be fixed and this recording of membership would at this stage at any rate contain the seeds of individualism. It was not until much later that, after a period of despair and poverty, the East Coast people prompted by men trained in the pakeha world, drew more closely together again in communal farming projects.