KEY POINTS:
No one knows what will happen now that Kaiwhakahaere Mark Solomon appears to have rejected last week's proposed solution to the tensions that beset the Ngai Tahu leadership.
The tribe had four options. The first was that one of the key leaders from either of the two factions,
Solomon or Dr Te Maire Tau, resigned or was pushed from Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (Tront).
But that would have given one side added cause for grievance, making inevitable another more destructive conflagration.
The second option would have been for both leaders to step down. Tau suggested this two weeks ago but was rejected. And it would have wasted two useful talents without necessarily resolving the underlying issues.
Third would have been for the entire board to step down, then hold elections, which would have been premature with elections scheduled for November. There could also have been unfavourable financial consequences if that caused a loss of confidence, although Wally Stone's elevation last year seems to have shored that up.
Having the entire board stepping down would have been too radical. Cool heads are required.
Last week, I said publicly that the option taken would be the one of Ngai Tahu's choosing - because, all things said, the tribe has done a good job with their settlement.
Solomon would remain as Kaiwhakahaere, another person (Don Couch was chosen) would chair Tront and represent Tront on the interim board formed last year to resolve tensions between Solomon and chief executive officer Tahupotiki.
This would have kept Solomon's admired statesman skills at the inter-tribal, national and international level, allowed business to proceed as usual, and given time to work towards a final sorting in the end-of-year elections.
Solomon's rejection last week of the compromise deal was both brave and risky. It went against the Tront majority of 14 votes (three abstained, one opposed), which was an improvement on the usual 9-9 deadlock - although an argument that says wait until November is understandable.
The standoff of high-noon proportions may mean one of the other options is chosen. Or that all bets are off for now. Or that in a climate of mistrust, Solomon wants further clarification. He and Couch will certainly negotiate. A reckoning in November is likely. To achieve stability, all runanga elections will need to be by franchise of registered beneficiaries.
At present, some are elected by marae committees, a system that efficaciously keeps things simple in the early post-Treaty settlement period. There are dangers in being too complex too early, as Tainui found out in 2000 when its 183-member parliament was unable to respond effectively to their financial crisis.
It is time to change. Such an election may finally break the deadlock and close the gap that appears to be growing between the leaders and the flax roots by imposing the will of a fuller majority.
Elections also naturally make the leaders more accountable, if only because decorum improves under a steady gaze.
It's also important that Maori and Pakeha observers put things in their proper perspective. Some reporting has sensationalised any and all tidbits as evidence of an innate incompetence.
There is a wider historical context here. Most tribes have either been through these sorts of issues before, are going through them now, or will be going through them tomorrow.
Nineteenth-century colonial experience that shattered Maori social structures, and subsequent 20th-century urbanisation, left huge gaps in Maori leadership.
In the aftermath of Treaty settlements, this has meant that many often very highly talented young people have been prematurely thrust into leadership positions at relatively young ages.
The pre-existing leadership deficit also means that mentoring mechanisms are often non-existent or inadequate.
This new generation of leaders faces big challenges around the sudden shift from poverty to wealth. An infrastructure needs to be built from the bottom up. There is a fundamental lack of skills at all levels.
Systems need to reconcile traditional ways of doing things with modern accounting. The bottom dollar has to balance with the creation and preservation of intergenerational wealth. The wishes of shareholders must be counselled against a sense of duty to ancestors and the generations of tomorrow.
A balance has to be worked between new centralised iwi structures and the independence of hapu subtribes.
Work doesn't stop at 5pm. The phone goes all night - the shareholders are kaumatua, mum, dad, uncles, aunties, brothers, sisters, cousins and all their kids.
Ngai Tahu has done a good job at fostering a new generation of fine male and female leaders. That the main team players are not working as a whanau indicates that school is over. The talent has been developed, a crossroads has been reached. It's time to choose which ones to follow into the future. This is usual post-Treaty settlement stuff. Tainui went through something similar in 2000. Today is Ngai Tahu's turn. Tomorrow it could be my tribe.
In the old days, all things were settled by whakapapa, marae and hakari (a feast). The first reminded that the common interest is paramount - this is how vision is born. The second gave transparency: this is how vision is built. Sharing kai symbolised universal dedication to final decisions: this is how visions are achieved, protected and cherished.
Tribes need to sit at the same table, at least until the next inevitable and periodically necessary battle erupts in the neverending struggle for mana that ensures the tribe remains vibrant.
* Rawiri Taonui is head of the School of Maori and Indigenous Studies, University of Canterbury.
