In all their public presentations, leaders of Na’i Aupuni have stressed that the nonprofit simply aims to stay the course toward conducting the planned election of delegates for a Native Hawaiian constitutional convention, or ‘aha. About the outcome of those discussions, they said, they are agnostic.
It appears not everyone believes them, and at least one prominent leader has cast a no-confidence vote on the whole process. Opting out is a valid form of registering protest, but in this case, it’s not a very effective one.
Longtime Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte, until this week a candidate for one of the delegate spots, has pulled out of the race. Ritte asserted that the process is "rigged to fit very specific agendas" — specifically he said, those supported by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which provided Na’i Aupuni with funding for the election.
Additionally, the long-established civic organization, the Royal Order of Kamehameha I, has stated its own opposition to the ‘aha, for much the same reason.
Alika Desha, who is chancellor for the long-established civic organization, said his group cannot support what some will see as an agenda that will undermine the argument made by his and other Hawaiian organizations: that the kingdom of Hawaii still exists.
This is a deeply held principle for many of the civic organizations, which emerged nearly a century ago to maintain continuity of advocacy for Native Hawaiians in the absence of their own government, overthrown in 1893.
And OHA — in the past an advocate for the creation of a "nation within a nation" through federal administration — has distanced itself from the process by financing it through a nonprofit. The fact that this is seen as a fig leaf by Ritte and the Order, as well as by conservative organizations such as the Grassroot Institute that oppose the whole sovereignty movement, is ironic.
But those looking at the ‘aha process with a cynical eye need to step back and consider what they are giving up by refusing to participate.
Consider that Kamana’opono Crabbe, chief executive officer of OHA who has criticized the federal-recognition path himself, has confirmed that OHA has maintained its neutrality and is not driving any particular outcome from the Na’i Aupuni process.
Consider that the departure of people such as Ritte could sap the credibility from the election in the eyes of some potential voters, discouraging them from engaging in it.
Finally, consider that a diminished presence of any perspective only ensures that the outcome will be shaped by those who remain.
In the end, the only objective served by an ‘aha that is less than broad-based will be the preservation of the status quo, with experienced office-holders and established power-brokers firmly steering things.
The marketplace of ideas is the essence of democracy, and if self-determination means anything, it should mean that the people themselves determine their future — all the people. In this case, heading for the exits produces nothing of value.
