Looking back at
what we used to have and what we are now subjected to, one has to wonder
whether democracy has been well served by the changes.
Having voted in every election since its introduction, it is difficult to not come away with the overwhelming impression that our version of MMP has created a monster where the tail too often wags the dog.
Being charitable,
I doubt whether that was the real intention of those who advocated for greater
representation of minor parties who had previously been regarded as the crazy
fringe groups of modern society.
Unfortunately,
what we have now is a system where (with a few notable exceptions) governments are being dictated to by a bunch
of unruly, idealogical radicals who are embraced simply to make up the numbers
in order to get elected.
But almost without
exception, particularly with coalitions of the left, campaign promises become
collateral damage when the rogue elements begin to flex their muscles.
Ironically, the
classic example came as a result of the more stable element of the Ardern
coalition, NZ First, providing the numbers which allowed the radical element
within the Labour caucus to introduce policies that would set back race
relations in this country for decades. In fact, the current government has
spent the first half of its term unravelling the Woke policies that had become
law in a clandestine manner under the previous mob.
So, we can see
that under our version of MMP, the making of laws that will negatively dictate
the political environment of future generations is not necessarily a matter of
choice but more a matter of chance.
Knowing how close
we were to becoming a full grown idealogically driven dictatorship, is it any
wonder that many are now questioning whether we were right to ditch the FPP
system that had served us well for so long.
My guess is that,
due to that recent unfortunate experience, voters may be wishing for a return
to the old days where a three year election cycle was the best hand-brake on
rougue elements within the governing party.
Promoters of MMP
will respond by pointing to democratically elected governments of the past who
were able to introduce legislation that, in hindsight, would be considered not
in the country’s best interests eg. The final term of the Muldoon
administration.
But even that
government was subject to the will of the people and was voted out at the next
election due to a pendulum swing in voter support.
The problem with
our version of MMP is that the damaging effects to society of Woke law may not
be recognised until well after it has become entrenched on the statute books
and in the public servant manuals - by then it becomes more difficult to
reverse the societal trend it has created.
In order to
achieve a reversal we would have to eradicate large section of the upper
echelons of our public service who are Woke sympathisers and have been promoted
to their positions because of their adherence to those ideals.
You can’t just
sack them all and start again so herein lies the real problem.
We become
subservient not just to our political masters but also to their sycophantic
supposedly neutral, public servant supporters who have the ability to make it
happen.
Recognise this
state of affairs in Godzone anyone? - if so, do you think MMP was such a good
idea.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
14 comments:
The current scenario and mix of unsuitable MPs would point to a total and utter disaster.
FPP would have been identical. Its the long march and is facilitated by the massive growth of the Govt. in general.
The conclusion for me is that all parties are uninterested in shrinking the bureaucracy.
The first day the coalition became Govt. the word should have been we will reduce to 2017 levels the public sector within 24 months.
Think of the Reserve Bank risen from 250 headcount to 650 set budget at the 250 level and indicate you want more savings given the need for productivity and AI which should be central to data processing.
Good question Clive. MMP was introduced into NZ at about the same time schools decided that competition was a dirty word. It was generally decided that there should be no more winners and loses but equal participants for fear of offending people. The reality is that man competes to survive. It’s the natural order of life.
I was staggered that MMP was voted into NZ and asked many friends what they voted for. Almost to a person they had voted for FFP. Very few people admitted voting for MMP, possibly out of shame.
'You can’t just sack them all and start again so herein lies the real problem.' You don't need to sack them all, you just need to make a public spectacle of the removal of a couple of them.
However that requires a fortitude that our elected leaders no longer possess. So the unelected continue to do as they please.
The last Labour Government had a FPP type majority and used it to push through much unmandated policy. I am not convinced going back to FPP is the answer but we need change.
It is not as though there are only two choices, viz FPP or MMP. We need to look at other systems as well such as preferential voting. But I would certainly agree with the demand that each and every MP should have been voted in, not brought in via a 'list'.
What astonished me is that so many astute persons failed to see or publicise the obvious deficiencies. The msm was not so firmly aligned as now, pro maori attitude was not as entrenched and PC as now, nor so supported by terror of cancellation, yet few seemed to dare to be seen to predict the threat of maori or other strictly self interested groups as an in effect governing minority. The retention of the maori seats did not evince the outrage it should have. Persons regarded as intelligent seemed to fail to see the serious flaws (ie Bolger)
Clive, The parliamentary referendum system has the Hybrid referendum capability .The parliamentary elecronic system for online public input and paper system for those not online or incapable with the electronic age . Both Hybrid referendums have the same wording .
All Parliamentary bills are given a designation of public referendum or not allowing a better democratic outcome after first reading.
The Hybrid referendum is capable of taking every important decision to the Nation quickly and democratically and would assist the MMP connundrum .
Quite correct, there is no need to sack them all, weed out the worst examples and deal with them summarily and very publicly. There is a bloke over in Yankland doing that methinks. We cannot afford the hysteresis via passive resistance that drags upon the changes we voted for, so we need a coalition that simply gets on with it - and I do not just mean looking at the economy without dealing with its main drains like co-governance and the Treaty gravy train, that is pointless. As for voting systems, STV has gotten us some pretty crap Mayors where it has been foisted on the public as most simply ticked one candidate and did not rank them. Whatever you put up as a system, there will be those who work it!
I didn't vote for MMP. Yay.
FPP is the best system as the MP is accountable to his electorate and can feel the heat if not being representative. Simple.
MMP is a disaster.
Agree Barend
A better choice is the preferential system that operates reasonably well in Australia. Every MP has been voted in by a majority in their electorate. The voters still have to take responsibility for their choices but at least they get what they voted for- presumably knowing the consequences of their actions when emerging from the polling booth. Yeah right!
Our problem is that so many unelected MPs and local councillors, take advantage of their undemocratic position - using it to push for change
based on radical ideology where “in house” numbers are key to making it happen. Our current system needs to go.
Over 50 years and 17 elections prior to MMP an average of 54% of the votes cast went to parties that failed to get into government. In 2023, 53% of votes cast went to the good guys who won so the advantage of MMP seems to be that it siphons off a lot of votes the loony minority parties, allowing the more rational, centrist parties to win through. Expect that trait to continue in 2026 as the loonies in the Greens and TPM drain votes away from Labour, fragmenting "The Left" into the incoherent mess it always, eventually becomes.
No matter the 3 letter acronyms used to support and/or to tweak THEIR corporate democracy, the people’s representative democracy as we once knew it is long dead. Just remember the freedom’s we once had but no longer have. We need to stop supporting THEIR corporate democracy which is slowly but surely tip toeing us into totalitarianism.
The three year voting process could be best described as the modern version of ‘bread and circuses’. Alternatively perhaps as an entertaining popularity contest. However we view it, it is now patently unsuited to the government of any civilised nation. Every element now seems rotten to the core, held together with a lick of paint. H L Mencken noted that Congress would be far more effective if its members were simply selected from the first 2000 names in the New York phone book. Perhaps we could try something like that here?
Post a Comment