Agnoism: He aha tēnei?

11/12/2023

Several readers have asked me to expand on agonism, a concept central to my doctoral work and my understanding of politics in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Let me break this down in a way that shows why it matters for our public institutions and policy making.

Agonism sits at the heart of how I understand the dynamic between rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga. It helps explain why Iwi | Māori expectations of cultural pluralism and active participation are strengthening our democracy, not threatening it.

This tension is what’s pushing us beyond the traditional Westminster model.

The concept emerged from American political thought as a response to the overuse of “justice” and “consensus” in democratic theory. It is a way to transform antagonism (where we treat political opponents as enemies) into something more productive—a respectful struggle between opposing viewpoints.

Let me explain the two main approaches to agonism, which I characterize as “colonising” and “post-colonising.”

The colonising approach is what we typically see in traditional liberal democracy—it’s about building coalitions to defeat “enemies” and assert power. In Aotearoa New Zealand, we see this when politicians insist majority rule should trump everything else, effectively treating minority voices as either irrelevant or hostile.

The post-colonising approach is far more interesting and relevant to our context. It focuses on how democracy works in everyday situations and how bureaucracy responds to democratic pressures. We’ve seen this in action: think about how Ōtautahi’s communities came together after the earthquakes to redesign their city, how local authorities develop long-term plans alongside communities, or how Te Ao Māori and Crown work together in co-governance arrangements over established taonga.

Here’s why this matters: the colonising approach pushes for a simplistic version of equality where everyone must be treated exactly the same, with majority rule as the only legitimate decision-making process. In contrast, the post-colonising approach values moral equity in voice and influence. It sees difference, resistance, and conflict as natural and healthy parts of political life.

The post-colonising model accepts representative democracy – elected officials still make final decisions. But it creates spaces where iwi, hapū, industry, communities, experts, and scientists can genuinely participate in policy development. It’s democracy as an ongoing process, not just something that happens at election time.

For those interested in diving deeper, this is within the cultural pluralism and deliberative theory literature. I particularly recommend Bonnie Honig’s work, especially her analysis of how states respond to emergencies—it tells us a lot about the nature of power and governance.

This is particularly relevant for Aotearoa New Zealand because it helps us understand that the tension between different ways of seeing and doing isn’t a problem to be solved—it’s a source of strength and innovation in our policy making. When we embrace this perspective, we can move beyond simplistic majoritarian models toward something that better reflects our unique constitutional arrangements and multicultural reality.

This isn’t just theoretical – it has practical implications for designing public institutions, developing policy, and engaging with communities. It suggests that our goal shouldn’t be to eliminate conflict but to channel it productively toward better outcomes for all – not just the few.