Following on from the recent case in Aitutaki in which the court made a ruling on a traditional title. This has huge implications for future titles and cultural grievances between anau.

I maintain that this is not the end of the proceedings. Western jurisprudence has implications for our cultural practices and more importantly the court decision has provided the breeding ground for more court action and hence more precedents which are going to cause generational cultural grievances. In addition, it will provide the impetus for a growing and burgeoning grievance industry for the legal profession both here and overseas. A legal money go round if ever there was.

Western jurisprudence, with its foundation in legal principles and court precedents, indeed has far-reaching implications for our cultural practices. When courts in Western societies make decisions, they often set legal precedents that can influence future cases and societal norms. These legal decisions, while grounded in the rule of law, can sometimes conflict with cultural practices, traditions, and values that have been passed down through generations.

One significant aspect of this dynamic is the potential for cultural grievances to arise when court decisions disrupt or challenge long-standing cultural practices. For example, rulings that impact religious practices, land ownership, family structures, or traditional roles can lead to a sense of injustice or alienation among communities whose cultural identities are deeply tied to these practices.

Generational cultural grievances can emerge when communities perceive that the legal system does not fully understand or respect their cultural heritage. This can create a lasting sense of marginalisation, particularly when court decisions are viewed as being imposed by an external authority that does not share or respect the cultural values of the affected community.

Moreover, the legal principle of precedent, where past judicial decisions inform future rulings, can perpetuate the impact of these grievances. Once a precedent is set, it can be challenging to reverse or alter, leading to a cumulative effect on cultural practices over time. This can result in ongoing tension between the legal system and cultural communities, sometimes culminating in calls for legal reforms or the recognition of alternative forms of dispute resolution that are more culturally sensitive.

In essence, while Western jurisprudence strives to uphold justice and equality under the law, its interaction with diverse cultural practices can lead to complex outcomes, where legal decisions may inadvertently contribute to cultural grievances that persist across generations.

One might ask, where were the House of Ariki when the people were considering going to court, unwittingly to have the decision taken out of their hands. The House of Ariki should have been involved in the decision making according to cultural lore. They should have petitioned the court to resolve this inhouse. The fact they did not doesn’t bode well for the future of the House of Ariki. At a time when they need runs on the Board it appears they have been found wanting.

The court’s decision highlights a significant ignorance between traditional authority structures, such as the House of Ariki, and the adoption of Western jurisprudence and people seeking justice. In many societies where traditional governance systems coexist with modern legal frameworks, this ignorance can lead to complex dynamics.

Who’s to blame for this situation that we find ourselves in? I submit that it was both, those who thought that they had a right to the title and those others who also thought they had a right to the title. This was personal and had nothing to do with the title.

You see folks they turned it into a personal vendetta, and they all forgot the most important thing. The title is not about the person, it is about preserving and maintaining the cultural tradition as a symbol of unity.

Also read: Tangaroa declared rightful Tamatoa Ariki after three-year legal battle

Letter: Ancient custom vs. western law

Unfortunately, in this day and age it has become more about furthering the person’s status to the detriment of their people. I keep reiterating, with regard to traditional titles, the person is not important; it is the role that is important. Until they or their supporters get with the programme they’ll be playing catch up and getting further and further behind.

Look, Cook Islanders really need to get with the play and revisit their mind set about traditional titles and how those roles are expected to support the aspirations of their people. The fact that a certain person aspires to or is in the role is not important as what is more important is what the role represents for the people, what it does, what it is capable of and why it exists. It is not about the person; the person is just a figurehead it is the title and role that is the crux of the issue. Wake up. If you can’t see this then you need to get yourself examined.

So, what we got was a circus and the people basking in self-satisfied smugness at the court decision coming down on their side, not realising they had won a battle and lost the war. There will be no winners because by going to court they had decided, not for their children and their children’s children, that decision to go to court was purely about themselves. A total disregard for tradition and for sorting this out inhouse.

Te Tuhi Kelly

Leader

The Progressive Party of the Cook Islands