In his 1926 novel, “The Sun Also Rises,” Ernest Hemingway’s main character described bankruptcy happening “gradually, then suddenly” in response to a question about how bankruptcy happened.

This concept can easily apply to, not only bankruptcy, but to civil war.

The phrase highlights that the build-up to a crisis can be subtle and prolonged, making it easy to underestimate the potential for a sudden and dramatic collapse or conflagration. 

Civil wars typically arise from a combination of long-term social, economic, and political tensions, which can be exacerbated by specific events or crises, leading to a sudden and violent outbreak of conflict. 

The most important single factor that engenders civil disorder/violence is when a country’s political system doesn’t organise around the traditional left and right leaning political values but around societal issues such as identity, race, religion or ethnicity.

This sectarianism was predominant when, after the second world war, the old, historic colonial empires were being dismantled; ethnic and religious factions, questing for power and control, were the genesis for factionalised conflict. By the late 20th century, such rifts lay at the heart of most civil wars.

The second most powerful factor was if a government wasn’t a full democracy or a full autocracy, but something in between.

Now, consider whether abandoning equality of suffrage, the right to vote or one person one vote, that fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Does that move a country into that precarious zone?

When governments are clearly less than democratic, disregarding the peoples voice and lean towards an authoritarian persona, ignoring the majority, then the once-dominant groups in society are prone to losing political status and power and as such, when there is no obvious political solution, it is fertile ground for a state of Anocracy to evolve.

Anocracy is a form of government where there is still a semblance of democracy but it embraces authoritarian like characteristics, disregarding the will and the roundly expressed preference of the majority. Anocracy blends democratic with autocratic features.

Anocracies differ from autocracies and democracies through their power and ability to maintain authority, manage tense political dynamics, and push their provocative policy agendas.

The disenfranchised and excluded groups in anocracies, those that are dominated and overlooked by a government that promotes ethnic or religious favouritism, tend to be the genesis of social unrest and turmoil. The marginalised majority will accept discrimination, powerlessness and exclusion for only so long. Then the loss of hope and direction becomes the tipping point.

That is when the disenfranchised group looks into the future and sees nothing but continuing frustration due to the exclusion from the democratic process and the endorsement of minority interests, that they start to see violence as their only path to the correction of wrongs.

Once this point is reached, we are then likely to see the emergence of hard line, nationalistic politicians all too ready to exploit the pent-up anger, resentment and disillusionment, so then the risks of civil disobedience escalating into insurrection increase exponentially. 

Much as Ernest Hemingway described bankruptcy, civil wars tend to happen “gradually, then suddenly.”

We only have to look back to the German people’s support for Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Hitlers rise was quite a complex phenomenon. His rise was fuelled by a combination of factors, a perfect storm of sorts.

These included severe financial hardship due to the ongoing influence of reparations following the First World War, the worldwide economic impact of the great depression, rampant inflation, the marginalisation of a sector of society reinforced by an amazingly effective, yet totally fraudulent propaganda machine that controlled the media. Once in power, Hitler then systematically dismantled democratic institutions to consolidate his authority.

Anything sounding familiar here?

Should this government continue with its ethnic favouritism through co-governance, co-governance deceptively empowered with the right of veto, the subversion of democracy and the promotion of Maori influence and exclusivity we move ever closer to a possible flashpoint that is very, very scary!

Anocracy and the subsequent, terrible pathway it can lead to, could, with no major stretch of the imagination, tear the fabric of our wonderful country so far apart recovery would be a long and torturous process.

This is a recognised pathway as overseas insurrections have proven!

The “Maori Elite” are driving the separatism agenda. Their intent is full Maori Sovereignty and this is where the vulnerability and menace lies for New Zealand!

That is when New Zealand would find itself under Ethnocratic Rule!

Their regime would be termed an Ethnocracy: An ethnocracy is a state where governance, including the distribution of power, control and personal rights, is based on specific ethnic factors such as your ancestry. We would witness an ethnic group controlling the state and its institutions all at the expense of other citizens. 

This control would manifest itself in various ways.  Political power, and the attendant wealth of course, preferential treatment, preferential access to resources, preferential access to social institutions and services such as health and welfare. Even personal property would not be beyond the reach of those in control!

The Jacinda Ardern, ably tailed by Chris Hipkins, Labour governments of 2017-2023 set New Zealand on the dangerous pathway to an Ethnocracy using two contrived validations; The spurious and fabricated fallacy that the treaty was signed as a PARTNERSHIPand the hugely undemocratic, all encompassing, CO-GOVERNANCE.

Ominously our current government, a coalition government mandated to restore the democratic underpinnings of our country, is overlooking that dictate of the ballot box and accomplishing exactly the opposite!

Prime Minister Luxon needs a lesson on what happens when you allow an Ethnocracy to develop. Look at Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, Iran for example.

Because of their majorities, Zimbabwe and South Africa do not exactly fit the Ethnocracy category, but the inter-tribal belligerence and social disintegration would be the same for New Zealand.

Were an authoritarian style government, such as an Ethnocracy, to depower the majority, ignore their protestations (protests are principally about hope… It’s when protests fail to effect change that hope diminishes and violence is the lever within easy reach) and provoke hostility through ethnicity, what do the disenchanted and disenfranchised do next?  

So, we have to ask the questions; Could this happen in New Zealand? Who would want this for New Zealand?

Given their bigoted posturing, it seems a contingent of the Maori Elite and militants, “the usurpers of democracy” do!

So confident appears Prime Minister Luxon, in his discriminatory agenda to redress the erroneous claims of indigeneity and sovereignty, that any move to repudiate the power sharing and equity that are now embedded in all sectors of New Zealand society is doomed to failure.

We have reached a point where government action in any area that is not acceptable to Maori will immediately instigate a physical challenge and then elicit a legal challenge in the courts.

You have to ask, just who is controlling New Zealand?

Many New Zealanders now consider successive governments, pursuing a line of appeasement, have empowered Maori elite through co-governance and even outright control, have legitimised the Maori elite and their claims of sovereignty to the extent that, were Prime Minister Luxon able to find a backbone, find the ability to grasp what the majority sense and what the majority have need of, any move such as a referendum on democracy, even if supported by a majority, would trigger serious unrest and Luxon will never risk this occurrence! 

The tail wagging the dog and/or a minority calling the shots?

The 83% are not in a good place! We are governed by fools with feet of clay it seems!

Why are you determined to “save” the few but imperil the many Prime Minister Luxon?