Groucho Marx is attributed as saying, “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
Apparently just 45.7% of the world’s population are considered to live in a democracy of some sort. Just 6.4% of the world’s population is considered to live in full democracies.
The Economist Intelligence Unit ranks countries in a Democracy Index. Each country is given a score out of 10 in four categories: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties.
In 2021, New Zealand’s score was unchanged from the 2020 index, we ranked the world’s second most democratic country, after Norway.
I continue to question the operational effectiveness of our Democracy which operates as an Opposition Parliamentary System. My focus is not about Political parties per sae, rather the system in which they operate. Does it truly serve democracy and the overall wellbeing of the Country? Or is it more of a sporting match where teams vigorously compete against each other in the hope to be the ‘winner’? And what is the role and responsibility we, the voters, have to ensure democracy operates well?
Let’s review the three models of political opposition:-
Classical Opposition - To oppose anything and everything.
Opposition in 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.
Cartel Arrangements - The third is a counter-concept to the other two. It relates to government under various forms of cartel arrangements among political organisations operating within the framework of parliamentary institutions.
In the nonsensical game
of Opposition Politics, scoring political points seem more important than the
issue. In 2019 Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Centre for Sustainable
Development at Columbia University, noted, “The lessons of the world
happiness report over the years is that … honesty in government are crucial for
well-being…Politics should be directed as the great sages long ago insisted: to
the well-being of the people…”.
It is interesting to note that there is plenty of research on what parliamentary opposition is, but very little on its effectiveness.
Reflect on your living memory of government, are
the behaviours we have regularly seen (remember I am talking about the process
of government, not parties), the hall marks of an ‘effective opposition’?
I argue that historically, the consistent
practice of political opposition has been a combination of both Classical
Opposition and Opposition in Principle. Very rarely during my active interest
in voting, if at all, have we experienced the third model, that of cartel arrangements i.e., the various parties
working together in the best interests of the Country, rather than point
scoring against each other.
Certainly, there have been isolated examples of
that happening, but it is not the common approach by any stretch of the
imagination.
Successive governments have developed the habit of
responding to symptoms, not identifying the root cause of problems – and of
course, we the voters, have conditioned them to think and behave that way.
“Populism trumps data”. (Max Rushbrooke Dominion Post Opinion
22/10/22) Most of the systemic issues we
have are unlikely to produce measurable outcomes within one 3 year term anyway.
When will we stop reacting to symptoms and start dealing with the root causes?
The importance of open, considered debate and discussion on any topic cannot be underestimated. It helps us learn and understand. Putting forward ideas & even provocative thoughts takes courage & care. Receiving other & opposite opinions takes patience & understanding. Doing all of that well creates a continuous, exciting & exhilarating learning environment. It is okay for rational disagreement, and regardless of how confronting, dignity illustrates the better person.
In August 2022, Thomas Costello & Shauna Bowes wrote in PSYCHE, “Political views are, fundamentally, opinions… It is now apparent that reasonable, intellectually charitable discussions between progressives and conservatives are quite scarce…leaving little room for compromise or legislative success…ideological extremism is associated with low cognitive flexibility…we do warn against people who are sure that theirs is the only solution to societal problems…absolute certainty is something to avoid.”
Another hallmark of democracy is
participation, and voting is an act of participation.
Many observers lament the decline in
voter turnout and view this trend as detrimental to the democratic process. The
fact remains, those of us with the privilege (some may say ‘right’) of being
able to vote should be exercising that privilege. Not only that, but we should
also be actively questioning and challenging candidates.
Are we going to allow the selfish game of
egocentric and vain political point scoring to continue?
It is a simple behavioural logic
(conditioning) – say nothing and the current behaviour will continue. In short,
we can’t point the finger at politicians and aspiring candidates – they just
deliver what they think we expect of them.
Leadership isn’t about doing what’s popular, it
is about doing what’s right.
There is a basic logic that democracy
will benefit when more citizens participate. The Intelligence Unit of the
Economist magazine measures the quality of governance (EUI Index). Nations with
overall higher political participation also have better performing government.
The truth is that most of us make shallow
voting decisions focused on the here and now, ‘what’s in it for me?’ Are you
more likely to support candidates who are prepared to take the long view or
those that just hand out goodies for you
in the here and now?
And that
is it in a nutshell really. It doesn’t matter which party is in Government,
they must maintain voter popularity rather than do what is right to stay in
power. If it shouldn’t be that way, then we the voters, will have to change our
behaviour.
