“Treasonous” post a bit OTT
My comrade, Chris Trotter, has again got the debate flowing with his post claiming that those who argue that a top-polling party may have some moral right to govern if it roundly defeats the second-largest-polling party are potentially guilty of subversion and treason, with TVNZ being number one in his sights.
Before we call in the SIS to take Guyon Espiner away to the gulag to be forced to grow bananas in Waiouru in the winter or face the consequences, it might be good to think about what is being said on the topic.
I don’t think anyone argues against the obvious constitutional point that to govern a group of parties needs 50% + 1 of the seats in Parliament. What is at issue is how the public is entitled to feel about their electoral system in certain circumstances.
This is similar to the situation in 1978 and 1981 when Labour won more votes than National but National governed. No one argued against the right of National to govern, but it contributed strongly to calls to change the electoral system and these were finally agreed to by National’s Jim Bolger.
In the current circumstance, I don’t think anyone argued that if the result of an election were, say, Nat=42, Act=2, UF=1, Lab=35, Peters=5, Greens=10, Maori=2, Anderton=1 then a Clark/Peters/Green/Maori/Anderton, with 53% of the vote, would have total moral as well as constitutional legitimacy, even though National won 7% of the vote more than Labour.
An issue might arise in a situation where the result of an election were, say, A=45, B=2, C=2, D=20, E=10, F=10, G=6, H=5 and the leader of D became prime minister as the leader of a D/E/F/G/H coalition.
I think people feel, wrongly, that they are electing a prime minister as well as a parliament and so would feel that the leader of D was entitled to the job over the leader of A. I don’t personally agree with this, but I think the public would feel there was something wrong with an electoral system that delivered this result.
I think the real issue, in terms of the integrity of the system, would arise in only one particular circumstance and this is when the result were, say, National=47, Act=2, UF=2, Labour=34, Green=7, NZ First=5, Maori=2, Anderton=1 but the Maori Party won all seven electorates.
In this case, National/Act/UF would have won 51% of the vote and the Clark/Peters/Green/Maori/Anderton group just 49% of the vote. However, because of the overhang created from the result in the Maori seats, the seats in Parliament would be National/Act/UF= 61 and Clark/Peters/Green/Maori/Anderton=64.
In this case, a Government would be formed which had received less than 50% of the party vote, while the Opposition parties would be kept out of government despite winning more than 50% of the vote.
Now, Labour ultras will say “too bad” that is the sort of thing that happened in 1978 and 1981 and it’s just karma against you evil Tories, so get used to it. But that would be silly given it was the Left who pushed hardest for MMP to try to prevent the 1978 and 1981 situations arising again.
More significantly, the Royal Commission into Electoral Reform recommended getting rid of the Maori seats when we moved to MMP, arguably to avoid this very situation.
If you go back to its report, the principles of Maori representation were found to be as follows:
- Maori interests should be represented in Parliament by Maori MPs
- Maori electors ought to have an effective vote competed for by all political parties
- All MPs should be accountable in some degree to Maori electors.
- Maori MPs ought to be democratically accountable to Maori electors.
- Candidate selection procedures of the political parties should be organized in such a way as to permit the Maori people a voice in the decision of who the candidates are to be.
It recommended a system under MMP with “no separate Maori constituency or list seats, no Maori roll, and no Maori option” but with a requirement for the Representation Commission to “take community of interest among the members of Maori tribes” in to account in determining constituency boundaries.
To ensure Maori representation after the abolition of the Maori seats, the commission said that the 4% threshold (a 4% threshold was the original recommendation) be waived for parties “primarily representing Maori interests”. This would have ensured proportionality as well as ensuring representation by Maori.
This is all context for what some people are saying about the moral legitimacy of the next government.
If the Maori Party decided to back Labour, in the situation where 49% could beat 51%, it would be entirely legitimate for people to criticise that government as not reflecting the will of the people and therefore as not reflecting the spirit of MMP. Others would say, “right, we need to get rid of the Maori seats and go back to the original MMP proposal from the Royal Commission”. Because of this reality, there would be considerable political pressure on the Maori Party to back the 51% group. If it didn’t, people would seek to change our electoral laws.
None of this is to say that there would be civil disorder. We Tories don’t do that sort of thing. But people would be perfectly entitled to criticise the electoral system and seek to change it through legal means, including calling for the abolition of the Maori seats, which I think would immediately become firm National Party policy. And I think that such a 49% five-headed monster would be so unpopular and politically ineffective and unstable, that the National Party would certainly win the 2011 election and then carry out that promise.
It is not treasonous for people to point out these realities. And, in the 49/51 scenario, the Maori Party would need to think carefully about the consequences of backing Labour over National, especially with National having offered to include the Maori Party in a National-led Government even if it doesn’t have to.
I think Chris’s OTT attack on TVNZ as potentially treasonous for commissioning and reporting a poll, suggests again the very real risk that if the Left wins the election next weekend, they will seek to progressively bring the media under greater state control and eventually abolish the free press. People should be under no illusion of that. Few would have predicted the fascist Electoral Finance Act. I don’t trust that Labour won’t move to the next logical step if re-elected. It is clearly emerging as mainstream in leftist thought.
Related Posts
Tags: Chris Trotter, growing bananas in Waiouru, Guyon Espiner, Jim Bolger, Maori Party, Maori seats, MMP, overhang, Royal Commission into Electoral Reform, SIS, TVNZ
October 29th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Very well researched post Matthew.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Very well researched comment Justin.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Matthew, whilst your post is a bit more well reasoned than Chris’s, I think your suggestion that the left will remove our free media to be a bit OTT.
I also note your careful shifting of the debate from whether or not the largest party should form the government (which, as I noted on Chris’ post, is a pretty dumb question for TVNZ to be asking), to a discussion of what happens if a collection of parties with more than 50% of the party vote cannot govern because of overhang. This is a very important point to discuss, but isn’t the point that Chris was discussing, nor is it the point that TVNZ asked about.
From your discussion above, the reason you’re shifting the debate is because you agree with Chris (if not with his hyperbole) that a collection of parties that represent between them more than 50% of the votes, clearly should be able to govern. As to whether that government would be able to do anything useful, and whether those that voted for the parties represented might wish they hadn’t done so, is a different question.
October 29th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Thanks Crito.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I hope the Kiwis deliver a decisive verdict on 8th November and shut these discussions once for all. With the latest on Winston’s saga, I think people will be fed up with this corrupt Government once for all.
October 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
By “decisive” I take you to mean National and Act can govern alone???
Matthew did you and Chris have a drink last night and make a bet to be the most OTT today??
October 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Matthew - I can’t help thinking you might also be being a bit OTT in suggesting a Labour-led govt would ‘abolish the free press’! However, I guess it depends on how you define ‘free press’ and the abolition of it. And if you go back and read Helen Clark’s controversial speech to the JEANZ conference last year you’ll certainly get an idea of how dissatisfied Clark is with the media’s so-called ’self-regulation’. So I agree that a future Labour-led government might want to increase the state regulation of the media. And, yes, I agree that this would inevitably be a very dangerous thing. Where I might disagree with you, however, is in considering such a maneuver to have anything to do with being ‘leftwing’ (just as I don’t accept that there’s anything intrinsically leftwing about the terrible EFA).
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
October 30th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Bryce/Tracey/PaulL and those who think my concerns about the press are OTT. Be clear I am not saying the free press would be abolished immediately. It would take many years. But the first step would be to regulate ownership and that is clearly on the agenda. There will be concerns about the Herald for example being too partisan and trying to “unduly influence” the election (no such concerns will be expressed about the SST) just as the EB was accused of trying to “unduly influence” ther last election. There will need to be an “independent” commission to look into media bias. And slowly, slowly they move to where I fear we may one day get to if the Clark regime is not removed.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Hooton — Labour have already abolished the “free” press. That’s what the EFA does. And as for regulating ownership? well who owns the TV and Radio Stations with the biggest influence?. Yeah. that’s right: the government.
So you’re really talking about a few newspapers with declining circulation then, aren’t you.
Between RNZ, TVNZ, the BSA, NZonAir, etc etc etc - the vast majority of media the vast majority of people watch or listen to are owned and controlled by the state.
The EFA is aimed directly and blogs to control the rest. This isn’t paranoia: it is fact under Helen.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
None of this is to say that there would be civil disorder
sure there would be civil disorder. Not perhaps from you nicely-suited middle-class “Tories” - but I know a lot of folks who simply won’t stand for a lefty government backed by the Maori Party against the wishes of the majority of NZ.
Clark/Peters/Green/Maori/Anderton, with 53% of the vote, would have total moral as well as constitutional legitimacy, even though National won 7% of the vote more than Labour.
No! To put it simply, if National is the largest party, NZ expects they will form in government, and the minor parties must support this - by abstaining if nothing else. If they’re not there will be hell to pay. And - sadly - if the Maori party are part of that anti-National government, the revenge will be fall mostly, and undeservedly, on them.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The nub of Anonymouse’s post is that National means to be government by any means.
We know that. We’ve seen every kind of chicanery as they pursued and lost the treasury benches over the last 3 decades.
But it is easy to stay in power in a democracy. All you have to do is represent the people. We haven’t had a government that has even tried in a generation, and a world economic crisis is in the wings that will likely dwarf the failures of the last thirty years.
Civil disorder becomes a certainty when you keep screwing up this badly.