Power?
Power over who?
Power over the people?
Or should it be instead “wins the right to serve”?
That last word “power” reveals a mindset by media that is repeated over and over again and embeds it into acceptance by the public and dangerously into the attitude of politicians.
It raises the fundamental question are politicians and political parties elected to exert power over the voting public and the public interest?
Or to serve the people and ensure the interest of the public are met?
Bertrand Russell, philosopher, former member of the UK’s House of Lords and prolific author, in his 1938 book “Power” wrote “while animals are content with existence and reproduction, men also desire to expand” with a characteristic of humans, being that “every man would like to be God, if it were possible; some few find it difficult to admit the impossibility.”
Or should it be instead “wins the right to serve”?
That last word “power” reveals a mindset by media that is repeated over and over again and embeds it into acceptance by the public and dangerously into the attitude of politicians.
It raises the fundamental question are politicians and political parties elected to exert power over the voting public and the public interest?
Or to serve the people and ensure the interest of the public are met?
Bertrand Russell, philosopher, former member of the UK’s House of Lords and prolific author, in his 1938 book “Power” wrote “while animals are content with existence and reproduction, men also desire to expand” with a characteristic of humans, being that “every man would like to be God, if it were possible; some few find it difficult to admit the impossibility.”
Bertrand Russell – “few find it difficult to admit the
impossibility — of being God”
Power and politics are interrelated and shape the way people and organisations consciously or subconsciously operate in society.
In the political context, power is often defined “as the ability to influence or control the behaviour of others, while politics refers to the process of using power to influence decision-making or gain and maintain power.”
As one essay says “power and politics can be found in many different settings, from the government and corporate boardrooms to small groups and even families.”
Power and politics can have contrasting effects, e.g. a dictatorship or dictatorial government compared to a government which serves the public interest.
Confining the focus to New Zealand, in the last five decades, the focus has governments have increasingly exerted excessive power to the detriment of serving.
In the political context, power is often defined “as the ability to influence or control the behaviour of others, while politics refers to the process of using power to influence decision-making or gain and maintain power.”
As one essay says “power and politics can be found in many different settings, from the government and corporate boardrooms to small groups and even families.”
Power and politics can have contrasting effects, e.g. a dictatorship or dictatorial government compared to a government which serves the public interest.
Confining the focus to New Zealand, in the last five decades, the focus has governments have increasingly exerted excessive power to the detriment of serving.
Power Focus
It manifests itself in governments focusing on power – and retaining it and even increasing its might – to the diminishing of democracy, i.e. serving.
Power can be used to achieve positive outcomes, such as promoting social justice and protecting the environment, or some other area improving the greater public good.
However, today power is too frequently used by politicians for self interest outcomes such as exploiting the environment for the gain of commercial associates which introduces a real potential for corruption.
Power can also be negatively used to manipulate public opinion or suppress dissenting voices, leading to the erosion of democracy and a conflict with a democracy’s individual rights.
Power can be used to intimidate people, silence opposition or promote personal gain at the expense of the long term public interest.
There’s the famous often cited quote “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” written by the English historian Lord Acton in 1887 which expresses the reality of power in political culture.
Corruption
A mindset of power in politics can also lead to corruption, favouritism and the exclusion of individuals’ or organisations from decision-making.
As realistically put by one source “in politics, politicians may use underhanded tactics, such as lying, bribing, or manipulating public opinion, to gain or maintain power. In organisations, politics can lead to infighting, backstabbing, and the creation of toxic workplace cultures.”
While power and politics can be used for positive purposes, such as promoting social justice, protecting public assets such as the environment embracing assets such as public lands and resources and advancing the greater good, they can also be used to exploit others – and serve personal interests at the expense of others.
Urgency Misuse
In the New Zealand Parliament, urgency is a procedural mechanism that allows the Government to bypass normal rules, extend sitting hours, and fast-track legislation. By moving a motion for urgency without advance notice, a majority government can push bills through multiple stages or entirely skip the select committee public submission process.
In the 1970s and 1980s Prime Minister Robert Muldoon frequently used urgency to fast-track major economic and development projects (such as “Think Big”), minimising public debate and setting a heavy precedent for executive-driven legislative speed, i.e fast-tracking. Muldoon was not alone.
The National government led by Prime Minister Jim Bolger (1990–1997) made substantial use of urgency, particularly during its first-term mandate (1990–1993).
While former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has criticised successive governments for overusing parliamentary urgency to fast-track legislation, arguing it bypasses proper democratic scrutiny, her government used urgency toward the end of the 2008 term (such as passing adopted Green Party private members’ bills like the Waste Minimisation Bill) amid anticipated political instability ahead of an election. However it might be validly argued that urgency was used for the better public interest.
Unlawful Speed
Under the first National-led government of Prime Minister John Key (2008–2011), Parliament logged roughly 405 extra hours of sitting time and heavily utilised urgency. This allowed the government to fast-track legislation, truncate debates, and bypass standard select committee public submission processes, setting record high levels of legislative speed that drew significant public and parliamentary criticism.
Critics and opposition parties argued that heavy reliance on urgency undermined democratic scrutiny, turned Parliament into a rubber stamp, and denied citizens their right to make select committee submissions.
Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister (2017–2023), used urgency during major disruptions like COVID-19 lockdowns and legislative logjams, drawing justifiable standard criticism from opposition parties and people over public transparency.
As Leader of the House during the Labour Government and to later be briefly PM, Chris Hipkins frequently moved motions to “accord urgency” to fast-track the passage of legislation through New Zealand’s Parliament without normal select committee processes.
Record Broken
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s coalition government has set a modern New Zealand parliamentary record for fast-tracking legislation, using urgency on more than a quarter of sitting days and pushing dozens of bills past standard select committee public scrutiny to meet aggressive political timelines.
As shown, governments use of urgency to ram bills into the law books can vary. But fundamentally by-passing select committees anytime is unpardonable and an abuse of power.
To halt the serious diminishing of democracy, the media can do much to kickoff the concept that governments are elected not to dictate and dominate but to serve the people.
Perhaps politicians in total might become better personalities, imbued with, humbleness instead of hubris and high-handed haughtiness, to be polite instead of being pompously pretentious and respectful instead of rude in manner.
And overall to regain serving the public interest as their top priority.
Tony Orman, once a town and country planner, is now a part-time journalist and author. This article was first published HERE
It manifests itself in governments focusing on power – and retaining it and even increasing its might – to the diminishing of democracy, i.e. serving.
Power can be used to achieve positive outcomes, such as promoting social justice and protecting the environment, or some other area improving the greater public good.
However, today power is too frequently used by politicians for self interest outcomes such as exploiting the environment for the gain of commercial associates which introduces a real potential for corruption.
Power can also be negatively used to manipulate public opinion or suppress dissenting voices, leading to the erosion of democracy and a conflict with a democracy’s individual rights.
Power can be used to intimidate people, silence opposition or promote personal gain at the expense of the long term public interest.
There’s the famous often cited quote “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” written by the English historian Lord Acton in 1887 which expresses the reality of power in political culture.
Corruption
A mindset of power in politics can also lead to corruption, favouritism and the exclusion of individuals’ or organisations from decision-making.
As realistically put by one source “in politics, politicians may use underhanded tactics, such as lying, bribing, or manipulating public opinion, to gain or maintain power. In organisations, politics can lead to infighting, backstabbing, and the creation of toxic workplace cultures.”
While power and politics can be used for positive purposes, such as promoting social justice, protecting public assets such as the environment embracing assets such as public lands and resources and advancing the greater good, they can also be used to exploit others – and serve personal interests at the expense of others.
Urgency Misuse
In the New Zealand Parliament, urgency is a procedural mechanism that allows the Government to bypass normal rules, extend sitting hours, and fast-track legislation. By moving a motion for urgency without advance notice, a majority government can push bills through multiple stages or entirely skip the select committee public submission process.
In the 1970s and 1980s Prime Minister Robert Muldoon frequently used urgency to fast-track major economic and development projects (such as “Think Big”), minimising public debate and setting a heavy precedent for executive-driven legislative speed, i.e fast-tracking. Muldoon was not alone.
The National government led by Prime Minister Jim Bolger (1990–1997) made substantial use of urgency, particularly during its first-term mandate (1990–1993).
While former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has criticised successive governments for overusing parliamentary urgency to fast-track legislation, arguing it bypasses proper democratic scrutiny, her government used urgency toward the end of the 2008 term (such as passing adopted Green Party private members’ bills like the Waste Minimisation Bill) amid anticipated political instability ahead of an election. However it might be validly argued that urgency was used for the better public interest.
Unlawful Speed
Under the first National-led government of Prime Minister John Key (2008–2011), Parliament logged roughly 405 extra hours of sitting time and heavily utilised urgency. This allowed the government to fast-track legislation, truncate debates, and bypass standard select committee public submission processes, setting record high levels of legislative speed that drew significant public and parliamentary criticism.
Critics and opposition parties argued that heavy reliance on urgency undermined democratic scrutiny, turned Parliament into a rubber stamp, and denied citizens their right to make select committee submissions.
Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister (2017–2023), used urgency during major disruptions like COVID-19 lockdowns and legislative logjams, drawing justifiable standard criticism from opposition parties and people over public transparency.
As Leader of the House during the Labour Government and to later be briefly PM, Chris Hipkins frequently moved motions to “accord urgency” to fast-track the passage of legislation through New Zealand’s Parliament without normal select committee processes.
Record Broken
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s coalition government has set a modern New Zealand parliamentary record for fast-tracking legislation, using urgency on more than a quarter of sitting days and pushing dozens of bills past standard select committee public scrutiny to meet aggressive political timelines.
As shown, governments use of urgency to ram bills into the law books can vary. But fundamentally by-passing select committees anytime is unpardonable and an abuse of power.
To halt the serious diminishing of democracy, the media can do much to kickoff the concept that governments are elected not to dictate and dominate but to serve the people.
Perhaps politicians in total might become better personalities, imbued with, humbleness instead of hubris and high-handed haughtiness, to be polite instead of being pompously pretentious and respectful instead of rude in manner.
And overall to regain serving the public interest as their top priority.
Tony Orman, once a town and country planner, is now a part-time journalist and author. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.