We’ve got what we voted for: a parliament, writes Paul Tankard.
We haven’t elected a party, and we haven’t elected a prime minister. But we have elected a parliament, and a parliament is what we need for government. Electing a parliament is all the election required of us.I rather like the fact the New Zealand electoral system usually yields a result that requires the politicians to negotiate with each other. It’s not because I have no political opinions of preferences: far from it. It’s because there is no party with which I completely identify.
A few days before polling day, I took the online "I Side With . . ." 2017 Election Quiz. One of my students drew my attention to it. It’s a tool which asks your opinion on a variety of current political issues, maps your answers against the policies of the parties in the election, and advises you as to how closely each of the parties represents your values.
I had already a fair idea of who I was going to vote for, and I was mildly surprised by my results. I consider myself an old-school conservationist, and was rather abashed to find that the Greens were a long way down. My opinions — at least, the first time I took the quiz — aligned 63% with Labour and 61% with New Zealand First.
These two parties are of course not traditional allies, so it seemed that, as usual, I would have to endure a government that I don’t much like. Although, of course, anything can happen.
The trouble seems to be that the Greens stand for a whole lot of things unrelated to environmental issues, and they’re not things about which I agree with their policies. Likewise, whilst it’s clear that I — apparently — agree with NZ First about many things, I don’t really identify with them. I like the idea of Winston Peters, but I couldn’t actually see myself voting for him.
The trouble is that our evolved party system and carefully thought-out electoral system do not suit our unevolved parliament.
The parliamentary arrangements assume that individual members are returned by the electorate, that governments are formed by those members making agreements among themselves, and that in the parliament they will debate and decide issues about which the government wants to legislate. Instead, we get blocks of MPs — the parties — who represent a decided opinion on every conceivable issue, and debate is a mere formality and an opportunity for announcements and abuse.
No-one in parliament persuades anyone else and no-one makes up or changes their minds.
They’d get sacked from their parties if they did.It would be a lot easier and more sensible if we could ban parties for a few years, and let them all reform along more distinct and limited lines.The local branch of the whigs, the National Party, should clearly and only represent the interests of the employer and entrepreneurial class, and oppose anything that limits the freedom of such people to make money.
They shouldn’t even bother having social policies, because those things are irrelevant to the shared interests of their core supporters.
It could have an extreme wing which wants to form the disabled, unemployed, depressed, prisoners, etc, into road gangs or paramilitary units.
The Labour Party, conversely, should represent the interests of the employee class, and pursue policies designed to protect them — I should say, us — from exploitation.
It should also have an extreme wing who want a minimum and indeed a maximum wage, for everyone, working or otherwise.
There would be an environmental party which would confine its attention to policies that would benefit the environment, and simply have no policies regarding Maori, marriage or marijuana. I don’t know that any other parties would actually be needed: perhaps just a few ginger groups to keep minorities quiet.
One with liberal social policies, advocating equal rights of every kind for men, women, children, the beasts of the field and inanimate objects.
And how about a genuine tory ginger group, supporting Queen and country, public decency, defence of the nation’s land, wealth, culture and sovereignty, and opposed to corporatism and populism?
Ahh, I wish.
Get that lot together in Parliament, in proportions that represent the electorate’s wishes, and they can decide everything else — including who’s prime minister — on its merits.
In the meantime, we should be happy that we have elected a parliament by a democratic process, and that soon enough that parliament will give us a government.
If only the parliament could be recalled promptly, before the parties can work out too many deals, it would be just dandy.
Though I think I’ll still need to take the "I Side With . . ." Quiz one more time to see precisely how discontented I’m going to be.
- Dr Paul Tankard is senior lecturer in English in the department of English and Linguistics at the University Of Otago.
