Wont someone think of the children!
Attention shoppers!
Attention shoppers!
It is never a good
sign in a functionally democratic state when a politician starts using a phrase
like “enhanced democracy” to defend a political bill which has clearly nothing
to do with democracy.
So in that vein
hearing Winston Peters rename the odious Waka Jumping bill the “Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill” we
know this has NOTHING (emphasis all Minnie Mouse mine) to do with democracy,
not a shred, not a jot, not even a sliver.
In fact saying its “enhanced
democracy” is a bit like how the US described its waterboarding torture process
as “enhanced interrogation”; a classic case of political doublespeak and euphemisms
to cover up what is a rather nasty bit of ethically and legally dubious behaviour.
Meanwhile, as the hot
froth of last Septembers Jacindamania hardens into the greasy scum of our
current coalition government, it’s becoming abundantly clear exactly what New Zealand’s
first genuine coalition government really looks like and in the eyes of many beholders
it’s not pretty.
But before we wade
into who said what and when lets take a look at this goulash of words and ideas
that Winston is proposing.
Thus reading
through the amendment it’s striking that this reads less like legislation (and
I read legislation for a living) and more like something you would find in a
zero hours employment agreement or job contract (ie unfairly weighted in favour
of the employer).
For starters the
additions the proposed purpose of this amendment is to:
a)
Enhance public confidence in the integrity of
the electoral system; and
b)
Enhance maintenance of the proportionality of
political party representation as determined by electors
And it’s worth
stopping for just a moment to masticate over what exactly does “enhance
public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system” mean and how
this amendment would do that because the implication in that phrase is that we have
had some sort of democratic crisis every time a MP jumped ship from their party
to another or formed their own.
Ostensibly the
argument would go that MPs going rouge from the party (ie waka jumping) creates
a crisis in the public mind that the electoral system is flawed or broken and
that by giving a party the power to strip a MP of their seat and kick them out
of the party would fix that.
However the period
of miscreant MPs leaving their party is more an artefact from the early days of
MMP and a by-product of the FPP system with its monolithically two party
structures which were never going to honestly encapsulate the plurality of
positions and opinions on New Zealand’s political spectrum rather than some ongoing
or dire threat to the integrity of the electoral system.
But if rolling that
phrase round in your mouth a few times is a bit much may I suggest the word
salad contained in b) which is where, under a thick dressing of euphemism, the
actual purpose of this amendment is stated.
Maintenance of the proportionality?
Political party representation? As determined by electors? Enhanced? WTF?
In short this
abomination says the following: Lock
party share of seats in parliament to general elections only and tie those
seats directly to the party rather than the MP.
Yes kiddies,
political parties don’t really want or need MPs as the elected representative
of an electorate and they sure as heck don’t want a MP leaving the party (and
taking their jucy vote share with them) and think about that for a second
because if YOU like the idea of democracy then this is extremely undemocratic.
Elected
representatives are a key component of democratic politics and in by-passing
the MP in the process you turn them into nothing more than a glorified customer
service representative between the party and the voter.
Which is where we
get to the contractual conditions part of this political power grab as the mechanism
for kicking a MP from the party starts when the leader of a party:
Reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned
has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort,
the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as
determined at the last general election.
And where to begin
with this furshlugginer waste of words, do we start with “reasonably believes”
or what the definition of “distort” means (because this amendment has an actual
definition section but “distort” aint there).
Or, perhaps, it
better to start with the fact that this whole intellectual process starts and
ends in the mind (no matter whatever fervid state that its in) of the parties leader.
Then, once the leader
has made up their mind, it’s a case of issuing a written warning to said member,
give them 21 days to respond and a final consideration before pulling the trigger, expelling said member from the party and giving their seat to someone more
willing to eat chain for the leader.
The only brake on
this hideous process is section 55D(c) which requires 2/3rds majority of parliamentary
members of that party agree that written notice should be given but that brake
becomes a lot less effective when you consider that if you were a MP in such a
situation and not willing to back such a process you could very likely be next
to get expelled under the “distorting the proportionality of political party
representation” clause.
And all of this
leaves out the vital question of how exactly does a party prove that its MPs
really want to kick one of their colleagues out when it’s clear that the whole
situation is one of deliberate imbalance in favour of the party leader. Who is
going to stand up and say they are not down with the party chopping off a head
when the consequence of doing so is your neck on the block!
So in summary,
Winston wants political power vested in the party structure and directly under
the control of the party leader while marginalising the elected representatives
(the MPs) and all because of the supposed threat to democracy of MPs not doing
what their party wishes.
All which takes on
the most delicious coating of irony (Mmmmmm Irony!) when you realise that the
very reason for the existence of Winston Peters as acting PM today is because
he jumped ship from National in the early 90s and took his “electoral
proportionality” with him.
But if your
ironometer* on your phone is not going off right now the hypocrisy alarm should
certainly be because Winston planning to eliminate the very means that he and
NZ First came into being smacks a lot like how MPs, who got a free tertiary
education in times past, one day decided to make going to university study fees based
(along with the monstrous student loans that is often required) from now on.
And few are happy
with this development.
Labour and Andrew
Little, currently the shepherd for this black sheep of a bill though parliament,
is not keen on the idea and neither is Nick Smith or National** who described
the Greens participation in this crime as “selling its soul for power” which is
exactly spot on and Nick should know as he has re-mortgaged his soul so many
times he has a timeshare in Hell.
And my season of
cognitive dissonance continues when I again (for the second time in less than a
month) find myself in full agreement with Barry Soper over this thing while both the left and right sides of blogsphere are also against this political version of being
tied over a hobby horse while being painfully rogerd from behind as Winston
recreates the basement scene from Pulp Fiction with democracy as Marsalis Wallace,
Winston as Zed and the Greens as the weedy guy standing off to the side passively
watching the action and getting all turned on***.
The only good in this
is it’s not law yet and still in select committee but with the coalition having
the numbers (thank James Shaw kids!) we could very easily have this being enacted
and serving as prima facie evidence that the price of power in this collation government
is letting Winston kiddie fiddle democracy in public all the while he is claiming
it will “enhance” the experience.
Make no mistake about
it; if you value democracy or have ever been helped by your local MP then you
should be against this because the only people a MP should be answerable to is
the people who elected them, not whatever blowhard happens to be party leader.
*-trademarked and
patented
**- Again doing the
job of opposition party spokesperson and blowing my mind at the same time
***-Who gets to be Bruce Willis's character is yet to be detremined
I accept the contention that this legislation takes political power away from the electorate and places it in the hands of party organizations, and I accept that for a number of reasons that may be an undesirable outcome. However, isn't it the case that the rise of the parliamentary party system made some form of proportional representation a logical and eventually unavoidable consequence, and that this proposed "waka jumping" measure is in its turn a logical consequence of the MMP system? Isn't it time to step back and construct a new system of representation that does not depend on the party system, and which gives the voters themselves real control over the fate of their elected representatives?
ReplyDeleteHi Geoff - I remember us having a discussion around taking democracy in a new direction previously so yes I am down for having a new system of representation.
ReplyDeleteHowever - I dont think Winston is down for such a thing (he is just doing this for his own reasons) and I would not agree that such legislation is an unavoidable consequence of MMP.
Yes there was waka jumping in the past but it also happened under FPP and the heady days of such behavior have dwindled to nothing because waka jumping rarely proves to be a better option for the MP. Either the MP gets hammered at the polls or the seat reverts or the newly formed party gets hammered at the polls and dies a slow death.
The exceptions (like Winston and United Future under Peter Dunne) were reliant enough because the electorate backed the MP and to some degree the other parties were not able to effectively contest the seat. The obvious exception here is ACT in its seat where National has just kept on gifting it the seat rather than destroying ACT in one election.
I would agree that the concept of an elected representative is an archaic concept dating back to early days of democracy and if we had some sort of direct representation we would not need such a person/role.
Unfortunately at this time we dont so no matter how problematic they are, and I have a few days where I wonder if we really do need them, until we get another system we have to have them and if such a link between the people and the party is reduced to a front office role then there is no need for a MP at all except as a cushy job for life.
I will be clear the issue for me is less about waka jumping and the fact that the MP as we know it is a direct representative of their electorate, and as such should be able to express the will of that electorate freely and at any time.
If an MP looses that then what exactly is a MP for? And the ability of an electorate, and the people in it to express themselves is heavily reduced to elections only and via the party.
MPs are, as much as I hate to say it, a necessary thing until we get that better system both you and I would like to see.
My dream would be for something where an MP could only serve for a limited time and parties were abolished because we would have a direct digital democracy, but thats just me.
"My dream would be for something where an MP could only serve for a limited time and parties were abolished because we would have a direct digital democracy, but thats just me."
ReplyDeleteI hope that it is not just you, and I think you would find yourself in good company if that possibility was canvassed widely.
Importantly, it need not remain a dream. Such a system could be implemented from the grass roots up. Once it achieved a critical mass membership (say 5% of the population?) and was shown to be workable, I reckon the momentum would build to replace the present dysfunctional system with a "direct digital democracy".
I don't really disagree with you that the link between an electorate member and his or her constituency is one of the last authentically democratic elements in the present system. However I see the system being driven by the logic of parties, rather than the logic of personal representation and there seems a certain inevitability to the proposed new waka jumping law.
Yeah I would also say that political parties have captured the "market" so to speak on representation so MPs are kinda redundant in their eyes but that is why getting rid or at least being able to change parties or limit MPs terms is important if we dont go for a digital democracy.
ReplyDeleteParties can be important parts of a constuency given that its not a total plurality of views out there but looking at how most political parties then set themslves up as ongoing entities despite any value they deliver I would think that the jump to digital is valid as at one time they served a purpose but a lot of that now is redundant given how conected people have become.
It does raise some interesting questions for policy development in that how does a populace articulate for a policy without someone first proposing it. Do we have a just a random pool of policy prescriptions or some sort of ballot (like bills for parliament).
It does also open the door for capture by vested interests due to the possible atomization of politics via the removal of parties but given how parties are now I would take that risk.
Inevitability or not I remain opposed to this law, I know its cliche to say its the "slippery slope" but in this case I really think it is.
As for the old woman who swallowed a fly, one thing leads to another. The rise of political parties under FPP resulted in a system which failed to accurately reflect the balance of established major communities of interest, and failed to recognise minor or emergent interests at all.
ReplyDeleteThat in turn lead to the establishment of the MMP system, which provided for an explicitly party system of representation.
Defections by individual representatives tended to undermine the MMP system, and so the waka jumping bill is proposed as a means of securing the system of party rule and representation.
The way out of this dilemma is not to give greater power to parties (the position of the bill) or to leave power without accountability in the hands of individual representatives (the position of its National Party opponents) but to give power back to the people, who are supposed to decide all matters in a democracy.
To do that all you need is a system of continuous election which can be easily and cheaply effected using digital technology. Nothing too radical here. The New Zealand government presently operates on a system of continuous election known as "the confidence of Parliament". All we are suggesting is that the government should have the confidence of the people as well as the confidence of parliament.
You could also, if you wished, have continuous referenda, which any citizen could initiate, and which would acquire legal force once a certain threshold (such as assent by a majority of registered voters) had been reached. However, just as parliament cannot pass bills which require state funding without the approval of the government, so popular referenda would have to be limited to matters which did not require government expenditure.
I would also suggest that every citizen should have absolute freedom of choice in respect of both their representative and their constituency, but that is to go beyond the scope of reform of the present system and into the area of serious political radicalism.