Remember us? We, the people

Winston Peters. Photo NZ Herald
Winston Peters. Photo NZ Herald
As a voter in the recent general election , Gerrard Eckhoff  has some questions.

Is New Zealand First leader Winston Peters in the pursuit of enhancing parliamentary governance of the country by refusing to engage with the two main parties from the election night result or is he merely procrastinating for reasons of self-interest?

We all know that the special vote count, due this next weekend, will be similar in percentage terms to the previous election so where is the value in all the delay and attention-seeking by Peters?

And how does it help our country's governance if policies already voted on by the public are negotiated away or watered down in the process of forming a parliamentary majority?

Within the context of our election, it is worth considering the preamble to the constitution of the United States of America and that enduring phrase: ''We the people.''

The preamble goes on to state: ''We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for a common defence, promote general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity; do ordain this constitution.''

That statement surely resonates with all who choose to serve their country as law-makers in the New Zealand Parliament and require of them a moral authority from ''we the people'' whether it is enshrined in a written constitution or not. New Zealand does not have a written constitution along with such countries as Britain and Israel.

The expression ''moral authority'' implies such traits as integrity, honesty, transparency along with a high degree of open democracy from all our representatives. Most voters would demand these qualities as mandatory, even if some politicians don't.

Every three years ''we the people'' of New Zealand decide who shall be given the right to govern us all. That right or mandate is not given to any singular politician or political party who has crept over the threshold of the 5% MMP rule.

Despite the options MMP has delivered us, the party with the strongest mandate should always form or at least attempt to form a government by inviting other elected parties to join them. The alternative defies all logic and reason.

With 7.5% of the popular vote, Peters has found his party to be in the happy position of being needed by both sides to ensure a parliamentary majority by either National or Labour.

Surely that privilege requires an even higher standard of behaviour based entirely on an ethical approach to decision-making?

Currently Peters is acting out a real life and real-time fantasy where he and he alone decides the outcome of the election.

That's a bit like a player saying after the game, while I was only on the paddock for seven minutes, and despite never actually having any impact on the final score, only the side I now personally choose can win as I write the rules.

Peters must realise he is effectively suggesting in order to form a more perfect country, establish his rule of law, ensure his form of domestic tranquillity etc, he and his 7% rightfully ordain him to fulfil this great cause; never mind the wisdom of crowds.

Abe Lincoln's 10-minute address at Gettysburg spoke of government of the people - by the people - for the people. Winston Peters addresses that proposition by saying that 7%-8% of the popular vote is enough to decide the outcome of an election. ''I the person'' decides - not we the people.

Unlike malt whisky - a favourite tipple of many politicians which matures and refines with age, it is not unreasonable to assume Peters has been left too long in the parliamentary barrel before a final bottling.

The next three years will surely be his last in politics. His legacy deserves to be much better than his current grandstanding - from the bench.

-Gerrard Eckhoff is a retired Central Otago farmer and former Otago regional councillor and Act MP.

 

Comments

My preferred coalition today would be National- Greens. I have no political affiliations but feel if National and the Greens are unwilling to negotiate with each other for the good of the country then perhaps MMP is not working properly.