It came as a great surprise to me to learn that The Parliamentary Oath does not require parliamentarians to work together in the best interests of NZ!
A democracy without opposition is dangerous for the society as a whole and a lot of importance has been given to the political opposition in order to make a government accountable. An effective opposition performs a restraining role, whilst simultaneously posing a constant challenge by promising a practical alternative. For that purpose, we use what is known as the Westminster Model as our model of Parliamentary Government, which has evolved since the 1600’s.
There are three models of political opposition which haven’t changed when the model was questioned way back in 1957. First is the “classical opposition”, to oppose anything and everything. Second is what might be “opposition of principle”, bent not only on wrenching power from the government of today, but on ending once and for all the system on which that government rests. The third is a counter-concept to the other two. It relates to government under various forms of cartel arrangements among political organizations operating within the framework of parliamentary institutions.
There is plenty of research on what parliamentary opposition is, but very little on its effectiveness.
Are the behaviours we regularly see, and more so in the recent challenging times, the hall marks of an ‘effective opposition’?
It is impossible to run an organisation without there being mistakes. The only way to learn to do the real thing is to do the real thing. And every system breaks down and even the best trained people make mistakes at times. You can chase down those who make mistakes and humiliate them, creating a climate of fear. Or you can talk about the mistakes openly so people and the system can learn. In an organisation, that is an illustration of a positive & productive culture.
How come that doesn’t apply to parliament and the running of NZ Inc?
The Parliamentary Oath is a statement of Allegiance to the Queen, heirs & successors, to be loyal to NZ, obey the law, respect democratic values & freedoms of the people. It came as a great surprise to me to learn that The Oath does not require parliamentarians to work together in the best interests of NZ!
We live in a world shaped by hundreds of years of collective, structural harms (e.g. the legacies of colonisation, heteropatriarchy) that shape the culture we live in. That means these patterns have shaped us too. Conflict unveils systemic traumas and the ways oppressive systems and violent people have used power against us over time and generations.
One of the strident messages I have learned throughout our current pandemic crisis is how counterproductive our parliamentary oppositional model is and how willingly and quickly MPs will resort to blame, personal invective, and ‘playing the person not the ball’.
So, if that behaviour is not acceptable in the workplace, or on the sports field, or at school or in the playground, how come its ok in Parliament?
The function of the opposition is not to rule. Instead, the opposition may have other functions, including:
• To offer political alternatives…
• To offer alternatives to the decisions proposed by the government…
The extent to which the opposition in a given parliamentary system is allowed to actually fulfil these functions can be seen as the sign of the level of democratic maturity.
An opposition party may be less likely to support government policy if it is large enough to achieve a position of power itself by replacing the incumbent government after the next elections. Larger parties might not show higher levels of support for government policies and actions because their credibility as an electoral alternative would suffer from being overly supportive of the very government they seek to replace.
In a review of the House of Commons (UK) it was found that Party loyalties greatly inhibited public criticisms and undermined evidence based reasoning about policies. Legacy procedural practices, plus MPs traditionalist attachment to inefficient and ineffective ways of working limited the legislature’s role.
Is government vs opposition, where the opposition vote against the government irrespective of the proposal that is made, the best model for democratic representation?
This practice is reinforced ensuring cohesion within party lines rather than necessarily the best interest of NZ Inc through the practice of ‘whipping’. Members do not get to vote ‘sincerely’.
The COVID-19 pandemic presents a crisis situation that requires extensive government action whereas the role of parliamentary parties is less clear. Government – Opposition relations during a crisis can range from consensus seeking too strictly adversarial. Analysis of a number of parliaments showed that opposition parties expressed sentiment in parliamentary debates on COVID-19 started out relatively positive towards governments actions and policies but increasingly became more negative, particularly when the crisis broadened from a public health situation to a social and economic crisis - traditionally more politicised issues.
The crisis is no longer new. Some of the issues around handling of the pandemic now seem to speak more to longstanding ideological differences.
So, to summarise the characteristics of New Zealand’s oppositional model (Westminster):
a) Our parliamentarians are not required to work together in the best interests of NZ.
b) Although we are a world leader in democracy, our parliamentary opposition exists primarily for the sake of opposition only.
c) Members do not get to vote sincerely (apart from a rare ‘conscience’ vote) but are ‘whipped’ to vote with the Party.
d) Party loyalties greatly inhibit public criticisms and undermine evidence based reasoning about policies.
e) They are all playing a blame game.
f) If the opposition party is large enough to achieve a position of power itself, they are bent on wrenching power from the government of today.
g) We are democratically immature.
Relationship researcher John Gottman identified four ways of managing conflict that weaken trust relationships. Many facilitators have identified these habits are toxic for trust in groups:
• Personal criticism (blame; attacking the other person’s character or personality; bullying)
• Defensiveness (deflection; self-protection; justification)
• Contempt (demeaning; mocking; disrespect & hostility; undermining; belittling)
• Stonewalling (withdrawal & cutting off communication; silent treatment; avoidance)
Let’s now take a step into the workplace, starting with some wise words from Charles Darwin, “In the long history of humankind (and animal kind too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.”
The overall character of a business is described as the Workplace Culture. Ideally, businesses want to create a culture that is viewed as positive. Positive = Productive. A company would accomplish this by focusing on innovation, flexibility, and empowerment for example. On the flip side, a company’s culture will be seen as negative when it is hierarchical, bureaucratic, or power driven. If there isn’t a positive feedback culture, people become fearful of making mistakes, and consequentially of making decisions, they won’t try new things. They will come to fear the job.
Positive cultures are characterised by positive leaders, leading the way by example.
Nothing is more important than building teams of creative thinkers and problem solvers stimulated to venturesome and inventive thinking. Innovation is the catalyst to problem solving and business growth. It means being open to new ideas, technology, and unexplored opportunities; a commitment to adapt; welcoming diverse thought.
Collaborative problem solving requires team members to maintain communication to help each other know who knows what, as well as help each other interpret elements of the problem and which expertise should be applied. They will critique possible solutions to identify the most appropriate path forward.
The opposite of a positive work environment is described as a toxic or negative culture, working in which is far from a pleasant experience. Those who bet on having a cut-throat, high-pressure, take-no-prisoners culture will find that not only is that harmful to ‘productivity’ but also workplace wellbeing is seriously affected. Such environments are often characterised by bullying.
Bullying is when someone uses their power to control or ‘hurt’ someone else by teasing or making fun, spreading rumours, posting mean messages online in social media or texts, name calling. It also includes gloating about winning and making others feel bad about losing. It is bullying when it’s meant to hurt. It is no secret that the Parliament working environment is no happy place.
Ironically, a government department set up to help businesses has an excellent summary of advice on shaping a good work culture on its website, which seemingly does not apply to Parliament. [https://www.business.govt.nz/business-performance/management-and-leadership/shaping-your-work-culture/]
I have assumed the business of all Parliamentarians is to ensure the wellbeing of the people and improving the business results of NZ Inc. Is their commitment to good governance and the wellbeing of the population they represent, or is it to a political dogma and party?
The key behaviour characteristics necessary to work together to achieve the best outcomes for all NZers include:
• Positive feedback and recognition for accomplishments
• Lead by example
• Recognise and appreciate great work
• Continuous learning culture
• Fairness, tolerance, and respect for the individual
• Encouraging experimentation and risk taking
• Ability to recognize and negotiate social dynamics
• Understand the impact of words and behaviours
When people blindly align themselves to one party and their leader, they tend to overlook the negative effects of their decisions. They don a ‘political colour’ shirt which acts as a straitjacket for both their actions and thinking as they exhibit:
• Unconscious & conscious bias
• Lack of Social Intelligence
• In groups and Out groups
• Power dynamics
• Workplace incivility
True leaders unite people. They do not divide them.
They do not find faults. But they do find remedies.
They do not sow hate. But they do cultivate positive organisation and life cultures.
Sadly, our narrow interpretation of the oppositional model of Westminster politics works actively against this wisdom. If all ideas are worth considering in the construction of a universal plan, then all political energy would have been positively focused for our overall wellbeing, not the setting for political point scoring at the expense of our wellbeing.
The COVID Pandemic provided an opportunity for a more collaborative and productive approach. For example and at the risk of oversimplifying, A Pandemic Governance Committee could have been set up, comprising representatives of all parties in Parliament. That could have worked as a forum contributing, debating, critiquing, identifying the most appropriate path forward and hopefully reaching a consensus.
Yes, the Government would ultimately have to decide. They would provide the citizens with an overview of all of the contributions, a decision, and outlining what had not been included and why.
Yes, other parties would publicly offer comment, especially if something they thought important had been omitted. They would NOT make a personal attack in any way but offer reasoned commentary on what they feel the impact may be. If it turns out they were right, then that would be publicly acknowledged, and their opinions considered more thoughtfully in the future. And voters might consider that come the next election.
I think this is where you say, “And pigs will fly!”
#politicalopposition #nzparliamentarysystem #blindpolitics #ingeoffsopinion
References:
The Waning of Opposition in Parliamentary Regimes” by Otto Kirchheimer, 1957
Opposition in a Small Westminster Parliament: The case of Tasmania / Australasian Parliamentary Review, by Richard Herr, Autumn 2007.
The Role of Opposition in a Democracy: A Bibliometric Analysis’, Shrivastava & Dwivedi, 2021
Opposition in times of crisis: COVID-19 in parliamentary debates” by Louwerse et al, pub 3 March 2021
The futility of Politics as a blame game. Opinion, Aljazeera, Danny Schechter, Sept. 2012.
How effective are the Common’s two committee systems at scrutinising government policy making? 2018 Audit of UK Democracy. P. Dunleavy
Eight ways to build collaborative teams, HBR, Gratton & Erickson, November 2007.
