Debating Flags

Votes have been cast and counted in New Zealand’s flag referendum. The result, status quo – keep the existing flag. We are told it was done in a democratic way so why is the outcome so unsatisfactory to many?

The flag that was presented to the people of New Zealand as an alternative to the existing flag was a bit shit. Perhaps that is not the most eloquent way to make the point but it does sum up quite accurately one of the major aspects of the anti-new-flag-ism I have observed since my arrival here. I mean yes, it ticked a lot of the necessary boxes in terms of colours, connection with history and contemporary kiwi identity. But, and I am being serious here, it failed in some of the most basic elements of flag design to such an extent that you could argue it’s not a flag in the truest sense. Flags, or so I understand from vexillologists (study-of-flag-ers), should be recognisable, replicable and representative. The alternate flag was: recognisable in a hotchpotch kind of way; not easily replicable -  apparently the measure for this is that a small child can recreate it and quite frankly, the fern on the alternate flag was a bit too ‘squiggly’ (to use the technical term); and barely representative. Graphic designer friends of mine (one of whom is not even a Kiwi) were aggrieved that there was no one with design expertise on the flag-deciding panel and therefore the alternatives to the current flag were never going to be informed by principles of good design. Flags, like brands they say, should be simple, bold and stylish. Only ‘Red Peak’ (consisting of three triangles) met their criteria in the short list (an addition due to popular pressure but with a Canadian precedent).    

All the traditionalists said that the Union Jack was important part of their history and of this nation. Just as many disagreed with that view, like any self-respecting student of NZ history, who would equally see it as a colonial imposition and symbol of oppression. As a friend of mine pointed out over a quiet beer as the sun set on the day of the vote: give the new flag twenty years and this generation would be used to the new flag, probably like it and see it as having historical significance simply because they grew up with it. We get attached to many things we are familiar with and by all accounts the Canadians, who now have a flag which enjoys widespread popular support, were deeply divided during their flag debate and in the years after it came out in 1965. The reality is that everyone has their own opinion, unique taste and very different preferences which the full list of over 10,000 flag submissions proves. I like my revised version of the Flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand (pictured above) which was the first official national flag raised on in 1830. Unfortunately, the official long list of forty showed there were many better flags than the final alternative – ‘Silver Fern’ (black, white and blue). But like many other Kiwis, it’s just my opinion. And that is the beauty of democracy except that it often seems quite ugly and disappointing.   

We spent a lot of money (NZ$26 million) and a lot of time (hours of debate from pubs to parliament) on this flag referendum. People criticize the Prime Minister John Key for pushing it on New Zealanders and that it was a vanity project designed to establish his legacy. Well, maybe it was. But the fact is that for decades there has been a significant minority of Kiwis interested in and actively campaigning for a new flag. Now we have the same flag as before, which will still be confused with Australia’s, and no one is terribly happy about it. How very English. All this really means is that the Union Jack still has a place on the NZ flag as we whinge just like a pack of Poms. This brings me quite nicely to a few potted comments about democracy which was probably correctly touted by Winston Churchill as “the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Perhaps first having a referendum on whether people wanted a new flag or not (like the referendum on the electoral system) would have been a good idea before considering all the alternatives. The process itself made this a waste of money in the face more pressing needs in this country. It seems that the compromises required in democracy leave us very often with policies that no individual with common sense would ever concoct or agree to. In attempts to accommodate the many, we regularly compromise principles and practicality to cobble together bad, unworkable and sometimes unconscionable decisions that appeal to none, yet all agreed to by the headless leviathan that allegedly represents us. Hey, on the up side, at least no one died and democracy means I’m free to say this.