The Flag Debate

A flag referendum was held in New Zealand and people were asked whether they wanted to keep the current flag or if they wanted to change it. Prime Minister, John Key, was the head of this project, which ultimatly cost the country $26m. He held two referendums: one, in 2015, to choose the flags that would compete against NZ’s present-day flag and the second one to pick up a flag among those which were proposed in the first referendum or whether to keep the current one, instead. The result was not surprising for New Zealanders: with 56.6% of the votes, the current flag won. The referendum was considered by many a waste of time and money. But what did the PM do wrong? Why was this campaign considered such a disaster? In my opinion, the answer to these questions lies in his weak campaign. Firstly, he argued that the flag was repeatedly confused with the Australian flag, which is indeed true. However the differences are minimal, so that this just does not qualify as a strong reason for changing a flag. Secondly, he believed that the current flag no longer represented the country anymore, in that it embodies the British heritage, but not the minorities. However, what drew the public’s attention the most was that although the PM wanted to change the flag and therefore strenghten the image of NZ as an independent nation, he did not want to change its relationship with England. Also, when questions were raised about it, John Key avoided the subject. So, all in all, New Zealanders were not satisfied. Throughout the campaing there were also many signs that showed people’s lack of interest on this subject, for instance, the low attendence in the public meetings. But the PM prefered to ignore these signals and kept this nonsense. But why would the PM insist on a subject that nobody seemed to care about? The flag debate was considered by many to be a distraction, drawing people’s attention away from the real problems. Instead of spending money on a issue that nobody was really interested in, he could have done something that actually made a real difference, e.g. investing in recycling programmes. In the end, a pointless question was raised, $26m were wasted and everything remained just the same: all for the sake of nothing.