The conduct of the Maori Party, Green, and Labour members of the committee has been revealing. In a sense, the emperor has truly been stripped naked, and this is not a pretty sight to see. We should all be concerned.
While parliamentary debates over recent years have revealed the nasty side to the political interface, never with such clarity (covid restrictions aside) have we seen the contempt that our parliamentary masters have for the public that elected them to office and who, perhaps naively, believed their elected members were accountable to them, that they would be open to reason, capable of weighing evidence, and amenable to necessary compromise.
Sometimes, the background grunting, snorting, and sniping of these committee members, has been as revealing as the submissions themselves.
Responses to thought-provoking, articulate, and well-considered points have often been knee-jerk, myopic, trite, and juvenile.
These responses have indicated, time and again, the deafness of some of these committee members to any viewpoint that diverges even remotely from the worldview they have signed up to, and the causes they delight to champion.
It may be old-fashioned, but these members seem rude, disrespectful, and, quite simply, ignorant. No matter the occasional PhD, they often seem devoid of reason, incapable of honest reflection, determined by the most bullish means to get their way, and to be the only voice in the room that will be heard.
I am not sure if Mr Seymour anticipated that one of the most significant benefits of this bill, and the select committee process, would be the unmasking of the real state of our democracy, but this is the gift we have been given.
We are now less naive.
In short, democracy is no longer democracy when the will and words of the population at large are treated with such contempt, when arguments are won by the loudest voice in the room, and when the boundaries of discussion are delineated by ideological dogma over reason.
Democracy is no longer democracy when the citizens are silenced simply because their views are contrary to elite orthodoxy and because these views are "inconvenient".
Richard Dawkins made a useful observation some years back that the smallest thing is a microcosm of the wider system of which it is a part, it is both derivative of, and representative of, the whole.
We must weigh issues and conflicts internally before we are competent to engage externally. Proper self-integration (and personal responsibility) deter us from projecting our conflicts, and our deficiencies onto others, and makes us open to alternative ideas. Similarly, each individual (or collective of individuals) shapes, and is shaped by, society at large ... and then by the wider world in which this society is nested. This is the very essence of the psychological project.
Life's journey is very often about the resolution (and integration) of inner (and outer) conflicts. We are unwittingly sandwiched between the super ego and the ID, between what we want on the one hand and duty (and truth) on the other, between sacrifice and gain. This is both preparatory and conjoint with engagement with the wider world, including the political sphere.
In like fashion, this is the role of parliament. Parliament should be the place where ideas are weighed in the balance, where necessary compromises are made, and where differences of opinion, and clashes of world-view, are weighed, critiqued, reconciled ... and thoughtfully, cautiously, and gradually, integrated into the national consciousness.
Parliament needs to be what Jung might have called "the prime locus of integration", a place where diverse, and sometimes conflicting, ideas come together to be tested, shaped, and refined ... not in isolation from each other, but as they rub up against each other. A place of open and free analysis, where ideas are superordinate to agendas, where conflicts are thoughtfully reconciled, and abhorent and antithetical ideas are put to rest.
Parliament is not a place for deeply opinionated, attention addicted, and cliche-addled people to demand the stage and to stamp their feet. The volume needs to be turned down on those who are determined to have their way, no matter their inevitable justifications and prognostications, including state media.
Alternative views need to be brought freely and openly to the table. The bearers of these views need to be protected and respected.
That our Prime Minister sees nothing of merit in this bill, and perhaps in this consultation exercise, bodes ill. Our nation is in triage. We are a house divided in the truest sense.
Free expression and democracy stand or fall together. Tribalism, whatever its form, and wherever it takes root, is the enemy of both.
Caleb Anderson, a graduate history, economics, psychotherapy and theology, has been an educator for over thirty years, twenty as a school principal.
13 comments:
How many times does Luxon need to be told that he was only able to form a Government because voters thought he would put an end to race based policies. That was the number one voter concern, despite not being able to vocalise it to pollsters.
Sadly very few would have watchd the relevant snippets, and for many of those the arrogance and slogans mouthed would have simply reinforced what they had been indoctrinated and desired to believe. Maybe in the days when newspapers covered reasonably objectively and near everyone read, the seriousness of the situaution would have been grasped by maore.
The representatives of the 'people' who sit in parliament who oppose the Bill have shown how repugnant they are personally but more importantly how much they loathe their fellow citizens who disagree with 'their' view.....from a perspective this is a clear marker of Stalinist style thinking and behaviour and that should concern every New Zealander that does not want a Stalinist type government in power.
Stephen Franks submission was in my mind exceptional because he attempted to assist the Select Committee in understanding their role and using the committee time gainfully for the nation from the thrust of his submission . Clearly his prepared submission made his point , however some members may have merely glanced at the typed face and turned the page .
I don't own that many words.
Put in my language the column reads (to me) "Elected politicians should represent the people of their electorate".
Yes - L/G/TPM were playing to their indoctrinated followers 100%. A very abnormal Select Committee process.
In other words the Bolshevik's.
Replying to anonymous 9.29. That’s the problem - at least half of our MPs don’t answer to an electorate!
Certain people did for sure. His name was enough.
Yes - but they are abrogating their role. i.e. in politics for
(various) other reasons.
PS Seems to be the best job in NZ. Zero accountability.
The crux of the issue.
Modern day politicians have lost sight of the very core requirement of representative democracy, representing the people who voted them into office.
List MP's are answerable only to the party.
Our resent governments have gone rogue. They are operating nearer to a dictatorship and are no longer reliable to enact on behalf of the voter.
How can this change.
Specific policies must be guaranteed or put to a binding referendum.
Alternative ways of keeping democracy valid, in the past allways involve rebellion and violence.
Don't think it couldn't happen here.
It's a charade!
Post a Comment