Guns and Gangs - Politics or Solutions?

 

How many times in the past have National promised to sort the gangs?

“Apparently an opinion survey by Ipsos showed that the public now views National as the party most capable of managing the crime/law issue.” 

Bryce Edwards – Political Roundup 15/07/2022 

Let’s not forget The National Party has spent more time in Government than any other party since they were formed in 1936 through an amalgamation of the Reform and Liberal parties, which had previously been in government until a major loss to Labour hence the decision to unite. In 2020 National had held office for 47 years longer than any other party. 

For most of the 20th century, National was more often in government than out of it. 

In July 2010, in an address to the National Party Conference, John Key said he was, “…proud to be leading a government that is making New Zealand a better place.” Later in the speech he said, “We’ve declared war on P and we’re cracking (presumably no pun intended) down on the gangs that sell it.” 

This was illustrated in a great cartoon ‘Gangs’. “*#@* ferocious pussy cats eh bro?” There is a gang member and his dog peering over a huge fence, topped with barbed wire, with the word ‘Gangs’ painted on it, and comment sarcastically on  three cats on the footpath who represent ‘Councils’, ‘National’ and ‘Labour’ which purr, meow and hiss gently. There is a newspaper on the footpath with the headline ‘We’d crack down on gangs- Key’.  

https://digitalnz.org/records/23219318/gangs-ferocious-pussy-cats-eh-bro-12-may-2008   

Nor should we forget National Leader Simon Bridges in late November 2019, declaring that under his prime ministership his government would disrupt and harass gangs every single day he was in the job! Hmm, how did that go? 

Interesting fact: Rob Muldoon liked drinking with the gang members and was a patron of Black Power. At his funeral in 1992, Black Power performed a haka in Sir Robert’s honour! 

So, the current Police Minister, Chris Hipkins tells us the government wants to “…hit gangs where it hurts.” He does go on to say that they need to engage young people with something useful to do to keep them out of trouble. Ya thunk!? Of course, just recently National’s Leader Chris Luxon has announced they would introduce a jobs coaching scheme and that it should be run by Iwi. Good grief, is sense starting to prevail? Do you think he and Hipkins might get together, share their thinking, and create a jointly supported plan? Or will they use the topic for political fisticuffs?

You may think that I am a Labour supporter having a go at National. Not the case. 

My comments simply illustrate that governments overtime have always been making promises when the Gangs profile became politically uncomfortable, that are clearly superficial political survival answers, focused on symptoms but not causes. 

Ironically, the most intelligent and ‘cause’ focused comment has come from Denis O’Reilly of Black Power. He argued that gangs are symptoms of much deeper problems, many of which stem from our history as a country and that they arise from colonialism, neoliberalism, and socioeconomic inequality. 

And that is not the first time he has commented, endeavouring to bring sense and perspective to the ‘issue’ of gangs. In 2017 he talked about ‘gangs being convenient whipping boys’ in an interview with Dale Husband. In that piece Denis notes that back in 1984, “Phil Goff called me into his office and said: We’re not going to be funding bad New Zealanders into work when good New Zealanders aren’t in work.”

https://e-tangata.co.nz/korero/denis-oreilly-the-gangs-have-been-convenient-whipping-boys/

Dale notes, “Social scientists can look back at that time and see that, when the work schemes stopped, the prison population began climbing. And that’s what we still live with today. When all the work schemes were pulled away, the boys became criminalised a fair bit and we are still cursed by that now.” 

I suggest we stop playing politics, repeating the continuous political failures, and start the simple process of root cause analysis to deal with the problem,  and not the politically convenient symptoms. 

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, not their politics, illustrates the better person, .

Rainbow flag not flown for gay pride week at Pukekohe High School.

 

I was sad to read ‘Queer students flag school’s pride’ (p4 / Franklin County News / June 23, 2022), explaining that the rainbow flag was not flown for gay pride week at Pukekohe High School because it was “unnecessarily inflammatory”. 

It instantly transported me back to the early days of our Gay Rights campaign when the gay community decided it was no longer going to put up with having to hide in the closet and pretend to be something else. Back in the 60s people were being arrested for being gay. People were being discriminated against in some awful ways for being gay or homosexual. 

My involvement in the late 70’s and into the 80’s was as the Secretary of the National Gay Rights Coalition, when the campaign for homosexual law reform began in earnest after the failure of MP Venn Young’s second attempt to legalise Homosexuality. ‘Salient’, the Victoria University Students Association Newspaper noted, “…the NGRC has established itself as a weighty, authoritative, and credible voice in speaking on behalf of gay right, in detecting discrimination and in protesting false stereotyping… The formation of the NGRC injected a new spirit of confidence into the gay rights movement, as a result of which has grown and diversified.” 

We were there to fight and fight publicly. To stand proud and equal. Gay Pride week developed for that very purpose. 

I recall teams throughout the country hoisting Pink Triangle flags on public flag poles, and later I remember our friend Fran Wilde introducing her Bill for our equality, and the campaign of public meetings against that Bill by the Salvation Army which we would protest outside or storm the meetings. 

During 1985 were the marches supported with a lot of people who were not gay. When we marched in Wellington, people were coming out of the pubs and shouting abuse, throwing tomatoes and eggs and stuff like that. But there was such huge positive energy from the people marching, that they just kept marching. 

We fought hard and for a long time. And to read that the rainbow flag was not flown for gay pride week at Pukekohe High School because it was “unnecessarily inflammatory” was a shock, propelling ourselves back  to the 60’s where gays were criminals and hid in their closets!

Popularist Pandering or Constructive Government

 Well, well, well! Why on earth are we surprised? 

 

[Source: Roy Morgan New Zealand Single Source. January 2020 – February 2022}

In order to become and remain the Government in New Zealand, a political party must be popular. The decisions they make, regardless of whether they are technically right or not, determine their popularity.

I had suggested in my last BLOG, ‘Appalling Behaviour in the Playground or Just Oppositional Politics?’, the COVID Pandemic provided an opportunity for a more collaborative and productive approach, e.g., a Pandemic Governance Committee comprising representatives of all parties in Parliament, which could have worked as a forum contributing, debating, critiquing, identifying the most appropriate path forward and hopefully reaching a consensus. (https://ingeoffsopinion.blogspot.com  – 31/12/21)

What has transpired is of course well documented in the print and social media which might be summarised as:

1. We accept the Government’s attempts to save us from the pandemic – until we have                decided we have had enough of being told what to do.

2. The most significant opposition party which had been busy eating its leaders suddenly              becomes more popular - because the Government isn’t anymore.

3. We get bored with people we saw as heroes - then we pillory them.

4. The Government is criticised from all quarters – loses popularity.

Not surprisingly, the Government got the message about their significant drop in popularity through the polls. They react to the concerns and make rapid decisions to try and ease the stress on the People. 

That is momentarily lauded then…. “In the last few days the Labour Government has come in for criticism for its panicked pandering to opinion polls… This was in response to pressure from opponents and the public … and following a poll showing Labour behind National.” (Bryce Edwards; Political Roundup)

The Government’s actions were labelled “cowardly...cynical and reactionary” by Jack Tame (TVNZ/Newstalk ZB) who also noted, “Once again, Jacinda Ardern's Government has shown it's more interested in doing what is popular than what is right.”  The website Interest.co.nz asked economists for their view on the reforms – “political, reactionary, poorly targeted, short-termist and interventionist,” summarises their responses.

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 to influence a changed  performance.

Appalling Behaviour in the Playground or Just Oppositional Politics?

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.

I liked this summary of Westminster politics – Picture a line-up of politicians. All have their arms outstretched pointing to the person on their left. They are all playing a blame game, accusing their opponents of responsibility for some event, statement, or incident. With politics, often another term for opportunism, it is often a question of how quickly to jump into a situation or ‘breaking news’ that can be reframed to their advantage. 

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.

Delta - Too Close For Comfort

This last week, Covid Delta got too close for comfort.

On Sunday I attended the zoom memorial service for Rex Warwood, a character and news reporter for many years in Franklin. Covid 19 cast its line, caught Rex, and rather than ‘tag and release’ took his life. 

 

Up until that point, COVID certainly was a concern for me, I had not come in direct contact with the dangerous consequences. During the first lockdown of 2020 I worked through at the Foodbank and certainly understood the impact of people losing their jobs. Sometimes there were near 200 people lined up around the foodbank waiting for food when we arrived at work. Thanks to my employer I was already double vaccinated before Delta took hold this year. In fact, I had ‘retired’ the month before we locked down again, so I was confined to home.

That in itself was not so bad – there was plenty to do on our farm.

People and behaviour fascinate me and as I came across the various memes, posters, messages, and the like, I decided on a project. Through Facebook, I began collecting what I thought would form something of a pictorial historical record of thoughts during  the Delta lockdown. Each day I would post a number of these. I never expressed any thoughts, judgement or commentary choosing to remain apolitical.

As you will know, a decidedly different feeling began to emerge. During the first lockdown last year the sense of the team of 5 million, working together to eliminate Covid, was very real. However, it did not take long into the second lockdown for a whole different ‘edge’ began to emerge.

And as my project got underway, my connection with Rex was re-united as he took an active interest in what I was doing. Apart from comments about posts he and I exchanged emails and messages with it becoming clear he had some pretty strong views, not unusual for ‘Punchy’ as he was nicknamed.

However, there are some people where the relationship takes  precedence over opinion, and that was the case here as my respect for Rex and his past work meant that we could agree to disagree, and maybe engage in some debate, especially about the ‘conspiracy’. Sadly, Rex was an anti-vaxer. Regardless we had agreed we would catch up in person when restrictions eased up and share more of our respective life experience.

It had crossed my mind that I had not heard anything from him for a week or so. I sent him a message and received no response. And just as I was wondering if he was ok, I received the news that he had contracted COVID, been persuaded to go to hospital, where shortly after he died. May God rest his soul and comfort his family.

Evidence is a word that has been bandied around a lot during this Lockdown. It has become a word that has evoked a great deal of anger, counter argument, fiery opinion, denial and generated some downright nasty interaction. Prior to Rex’s death I could have been accused of adopting something of an academic / impersonal attitude toward Covid and a ahakoa he aha (whatever) view of Lockdown. 

Not anymore! It has come far too close for my comfort! It is personal now! I have all the evidence I need. 

You can read more about Rex on page 4 of the Franklin County News, December 2, 2021 - https://www.neighbourly.co.nz/e-edition/franklin-county-news/44520