Desire to change flag shows flawed thinking

Our flag has history, tradition and symbolism. Why would we want to change it? asks SIMON O'CONNOR.

Why is it that some people are obsessed with changing the New Zealand flag?

Flag-changing appears to be one of those strange issues that act as some sort of palliative to problems. Proponents suggest a new flag that acknowledges the various elements of our society and presents a recognisable image to those outside New Zealand. Our flag, they say, does not reflect who we are.

This thinking is flawed. First, how are we going to create a flag that represents our society any better than the present one? Are we going to divide the flag along cultural, social, gender and religious lines, giving proportionate percentages to all?

Secondly, if we think that a flag must reflect contemporary society, it follows that we must update it every 10 years, or perhaps every five. Relevance means that change must happen often.

My angle is simple: leave our flag alone. It is not the greatest design the world has ever seen but it is our flag and it is not something to be thrown away on a misguided whim.

If change is to occur, it must follow a significant event that characterises the whole nation, such as a change in our constitutional structure. In such an event, change is a forward-looking act of unity rather than an impulse.

Our flag has a history, a tradition and a symbolism. We have called it our own. It is the flag we use around the world, put on our backpacks, raise at Olympic victory and fight and die under.

It has a tradition and it embodies what New Zealand is and has been. It embodies the reality of our land and its people, both past and present.

The liberal mindset, used here in the strict sense, seems to think that if enough of us want change it should happen. But the flag and the reality that it embodies is bigger than the population.

Critics say the flag is irrelevant to contemporary society. Talk of irrelevance is itself irrelevant. We are in the area of subjectivity; what is irrelevant to one is significant to another.

I do not call the huge cheers that rang out as our flag was paraded during the Starlight Symphony last year irrelevant. I do not call the tears shed by sportspeople as the flag is raised to our national anthem irrelevant.

Nor do I see the wonderful gesture of John Walker wrapped in the flag after his Olympic victory as irrelevant.

The key, though, is a lack of understanding of what distinguishes a symbol, sign or trademark. Trademarks are not appropriate for our flag - they are images that sell something. A flag is not about selling our country but about embodying who we are. We should not reduce our flag, and country by association, to some sort extension of business.

Nor is a flag a sign. Like an allegory, a sign is one thing that points to another thing, yet it does not embody that which it is signing. A sign exists to give direction or instruction. It may point to the seaside but it is not the seaside. The sign might trigger memories of fun times at the beach but it is simply a reminder.

A sign has qualities that make us think of something else, but not for a moment would we think of saying that the sign is the same as the thing it is pointing to.

Our flag is in the realm of symbol. This is a difficult idea for many people because we live in a country obsessed with divorcing itself from symbols, meaning and tradition. If such ideas were better understood, questions of flag-changing would be irrelevant.

Our flag is not simply an image of blue, white and red shapes. It is a symbol that embodies the realities of our country. As a symbol, our flag embodies our daily lives, the lives of family and friends, Olympic victories and the battles won and lost. A sign can merely remind us of them.

A symbol not only reminds us of an event but also brings with it the feelings of pride or disappointment associated with the event; we are changed because of its presence.

Our flag is a symbol of who we are today, who we were and who we hope to be in future. It symbolises the reality of nationhood and all the struggles that occurred under it.

On seeing our flag overseas we comprehend more than the colours and material; we comprehend the very reality of what makes us who we are - New Zealanders. We are in the realm of symbolism, and symbolism is real and powerful.

We have a number of symbols. Our flag is one, as are the silver fern and the kiwi. Each embodies the reality of our country but to different degrees.

The silver fern speaks almost exclusively of sporting prowess and, like any symbol, its power derives from the history it embodies. The All Blacks wear the silver fern with pride because of the calibre that has gone before them. The same is true of our other sporting codes.

The kiwi, as one of our earliest symbols, is powerfully linked to our natural heritage. Yet its forms are too varied to be the one symbol that unites us.

What makes our flag the appropriate symbol to continue representing our country is that its choice years earlier means it now embodies the history and tradition of our entire country. The same would be true if a different design had been used.

That the design of our flag was chosen and carried to the present makes it the relevant and contemporary symbol of today.

* Simon O'Connor is an Auckland writer working in Fiji.