Comment: In a recent article, Richard Prebble asked, ‘Why not govern the country like it is a company?’ The answer is simple, and obvious. New Zealand is a democracy, not a business.
According to Oxford Reference, a democracy is based on rule by the people. In an election, aspiring representatives (MPs and parties in New Zealand) outline their policies and values, and citizens decide whether or not to support them. A democracy is a bottom-up organisation, designed to express the will of the people and act in their interests.
A corporation, on the other hand, is a top-down organisation, run by a board that decides on a strategic plan and hires the chief executive to deliver it, while making a profit for shareholders. In turn, the CEO hires the executive team who manage the employees, who in turn deliver particular products or services to customers on a commercial basis.
If a Prime Minister thinks of himself as a CEO, with the Cabinet as his executive team, the civil service as his employees (not independent, impartial advisors), and citizens as customers, the recipients of commercial services (not decision-makers on strategic matters), this is the inverse of the way a democracy should be run.
A democracy can be run in a business-like way, ensuring the optimal use of resources to achieve desired outcomes to a high standard, with accountability for delivery. But that does not make it a business. In a democracy – ‘of the people, by the people and for the people,’ the desired outcomes are set by citizens, not by the executive team. The people’s interests must be served at all times, not those of political parties or politicians.
This is why in a democracy – ‘of the people, for the people, by the people,’ as Abraham Lincoln put it, there are checks and balances on executive power. In New Zealand, those within Parliament include the scrupulous avoidance of conflicts of interest; informed advice from the civil service; select committees and other opportunities for public input; and cross-party co-operation on matters of national importance.
Those outside Parliament include an independent civil service; independent bodies such as the Ombudsman, the Auditor General, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Human Rights Commission and the Climate Change Commission; a free, independent press; an independent judiciary; and universities as statutory ‘critics and conscience’ of society.
In recent times in New Zealand, however, almost all of these checks and balances have been weakened. Within Parliament, urgency is being used to avoid public input and rigorous debate; advice from the civil service is being ignored or is not sought; and cross-party co-operation on matters of national interest is uncommon.
In addition, the executive is proposing to give three ministers virtually untrammeled powers to advance projects including deep sea mining, oil and gas exploration, trawling sea mounts and the ocean floor, coal and gold mining in ecologically sensitive areas, and production forestry and carbon farming, with no input from the public or environmental organisations.
Even while the bill is before a select committee, the ministers are inviting projects to be submitted. This is a democratic outrage; and in the absence of rigorous controls on conflicts of interest, the potential for pork barrel politics and corrupt decision-making is obvious.
Outside Parliament, the investigative role of the press is being undermined by the lack of executive support for public journalism and the rise of social media, where misinformation freely circulates; the independence of the civil service is being severely weakened; the statutory role of universities as ‘critics and conscience of society’ is being challenged; and politicians are attacking or undermining the judiciary and independent bodies including the Waitangi Tribunal, the Human Rights Commission and the Climate Change Commission.
Under MMP, too, with coalition governments, the relationship between the votes cast for particular parties and policy outcomes can be tenuous. Small parties hitch their wagon to larger ones and force through policies that at the time of election attracted very little support from the electorate. Such disproportionate empowerment corrodes trust in Parliament and the democratic process.
At the same time, increased inequality in power and wealth, with lobbying and the private funding of political campaigns, undermines democratic checks and balances. If wealthy citizens, corporates and think tanks can gain disproportionate influence through media campaigns, lobbying and campaign donations, and policies can be purchased as part of the electoral process, that undermines public trust in good governance.
A combination of these risks and failures has led to a catastrophic collapse of faith in democracy in many countries around the world, with authoritarian regimes a common outcome. For New Zealanders, such a fate would betray the hopes and dreams of our ancestors and others who came here to escape from repressive regimes at home, and our parents and grandparents who fought for democratic freedoms.
When leading politicians are fundamentally confused about how a democracy is supposed to work, and who has ultimate authority in decision-making, red lights should be flashing. I agree with those many commentators who think New Zealand is heading in an authoritarian direction at present.
The founders of democracy were acutely aware of the danger of a return to top-down rule. As Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.’ As citizens, it is our duty to insist upon the democratic right to governance ‘of the people, for the people, by the people,’ and stop the country from sliding towards autocracy and repression.
Please send this to every MP to remind them of their responsibilities toward us, the voters.
A company exploits the rights of legal persons; a democracy recognises the rights of natural persons?
Thank you, Anne, for setting out these issues so well. Unfortunately democracy does not seem to be working globally. The major Western democracies can hardly be described by your definition. The attempts to force non democratic societies into adopting democratic principles over recent centuries have been a disaster. It is my opinion that economic degrowth will adversely affect both capitalism and democracy. I think we have already travelled a long way down this path. A global human population of 8 billion is unsustainable for the well being of our planet. The process of achieving sustainability is not going to be pretty. Democracy does not appear to be able to provide solutions to the challenges of unsustainability.
A wonderful elucidation and a sad and worrying prognosis.
This concatenation of doom and gloom offers no solutions. It still remains the case that democracy is the least worst of governance systems. And MMP remains better than FPP. Remember 1984? The issue is – how do we make it better? One move would be to create Citizens Assemblies, whose effectiveness has been demonstrated in Ireland. The other is massively increased education in civics at all schools, to encourage understanding, trust and participation in democratic processes.
I agree with both ideas, Philip. We need many more, as well. Maybe a citizens’ assembly to come up with ideas abut how our democracy can be strengthened in New Zealand would be timely
Another quick thought, Philip – the analysis might be gloomy, but I think its accurate. Without a good fix on what is going awry, we’re unlikely to come up with effective solutions.
Strange times, but they can crystallise what really matters, and provoke us to find ways forward, if we work together. I do like your idea of setting up a citizen’s assembly to come up with ideas about how democracy in New Zealand can be strengthened – the sooner, the better!
Doom and gloom it may be, but it’s realistic. Kiwis are, in general, complacent and apathetic.
If there are to be solutions, they will come from citizens who care; nobody else will fix this set of problems for us. And there is certainly no point in expecting politicians to show leadership. I’m not sure about formal civics education; it might help but only if handled well by enthusiastic teachers, and buttressed by solid science literacy. Another approach might be to actively support our young folk in the SS4C movement; it was deeply gratifying to see them filling out submissions on the Christchurch City Council’s LTP as part of last Friday’s protest event.
Other suggestions? Give a damn. Get out of your comfort zone. Team up with others who care about democracy and about our kids’ future. Make submissions, preferably in person. Interview your local MP. Flood your local paper with letters highlighting the anti-democratic nature of current initiatives, the growing wealth inequality, and the delusional nature of endless GDP growth.
‘Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity.’: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Thomas Jefferson also said “….banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency….the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless….”
And we see it happening here.
Thanks, Dame Anne.
As always insightful, and on the mark piece! Every politician needs to read this.
Bravo. What we are witnessing is not merely an arrogant assault on our rights as citizens; it’s part of a global battle between two belief systems: those who still cling to the delusion that the captains of industry can deliver endless GDP growth, and those who accept that the true task of government, now, is to maximise citizens’ well-being within planetary boundaries.
We are clearly past peak prosperity. Rising energy costs plus the economic impact of adverse weather events will heighten voter disaffection – unless we have science-literate, public-spirited leadership, a strong democracy and a well-informed and fully-engaged public.
My biggest concern now is that this ideological battle could easily result in a deeply polarised society. That would be a great breeding ground for the simplistic ‘solutions’ proffered by wannabe autocrats like Trump or Bolsonaro. From there it is but a short step to outright fascism.
Graham,
‘peak prosperity’ is a term I may find useful to use myself, thanks
Well put Graham. Interesting point about deeply polarised societies. As you’re well aware for years the neoliberal model has been presented as the normal economic order. Margaret Thatcher said ‘there’s no other way’. So successful has this been that what is now regarded as the political ‘centre’ is actually far to the right of anything we ever saw back before Roger Douglas and his cronies. The ‘centre-left’ is neoliberalism in its slightly benign form if that makes any sense. I think the deep polarisation is the natural outcome of our resistance to this and the entrenched ‘political centre’ digging in. Yes, the Trump’s and Bolsonaro’s will show up, and the Seymour’s and Jones’s, but so will the reformist people. What we’re getting out of this polarisation is also the breeding ground for the reformist movement.
Of particular concern is the loss of so much of our news media and tv analyses, investigations and commentary, at this critical time. Instead of regular news bulletins throughout the day, on two different channels, we will now have one brief report only. Who will tell our stories? How much of the day’s events can be covered in half an hour or so? ..Let alone any critiques or questions of those events. As the WaPo notes, ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’, and without adequate media reportage, the lights are effectively being dimmed right down, if not yet extinguished.
Is recognition of reality doom & gloom ? I don’t think so. It is a precursor to the obvious question, so what are we going to do about it ?
It is in our response to the problems identified, where solutions must become apparent. That is where our hope must be. Mindless repetition of the problem will only lock in the status quo.
– We cannot continue to promote economic growth
– We cannot continue to ignore climate change
– We cannot ignore the anger driven by degrowth
– We cannot ignore the fact that democracy is proving ineffective
But we can live our lives in robust community, in taking responsibility for others, in eliminating waste, in reducing our energy consumption, in taking care of our environment. Oh, there is so much we can do !
That is where hope must live. Who could disagree ?
I too am particularly concerned about this in light of the changes to news media. TV news and current affairs has a huge impact on how our democracy functions because it starts so many conversations regardless of whether a particular news item is viewed or not. This exact topic is something that should be reported on by a program like Sunday that many people watch subsequently via streaming platforms. That Melissa Lee considers a single half hour TV/video daily news feed within current media sources to constitute plurality simply adds to the sad perception that we are a society who “won’t know what we’ve got till it’s gone”. First TV news and current affairs, next democracy itself.
Shirley, perhaps you’ve hit on the reason Sunday has been targeted for closure.
I also have deep concern about the future of our democracy, especially given the shrinking of local media and recent reports about the shrinking of trust in government.
As for expecting government agencies to hit KPIs as if they are eager sales departments striving to reach the boss’s targets… real life is rather more complicated than that. Thanks for your cogent analysis, Dame Anne.
This is a great summary of our current situation.
There is a strong case for having a low cap on campaign expenditure to provide a more level playing field. The parties and candidates with the largest budgets have a distinct advantage and the National Party’s donations were considerably greater than all other parties combined (7.5 x more than the Labour Party). It is not policies that really win elections.
The Green Party’s idea of a branch of Treasury independently costing policy manifestos from each party may also be useful. Perhaps the complete manifestos could be presented at the beginning of the campaign to stop the drip feeding of reactionary, populist policies and allow the costings to occur.
There is a belief expressed by those in this government that a mandate to govern is achieved when elected and the only check or balance necessary is the election three years later. However, when the National Party received its lowest vote ever when going into government (62% of voters did not support them), the mandate for their policies is tenuous at best. Both Act’s and NZ First’s policies were not supported by over 90% of voters and yet Act is claiming that 35% of current government actions support their policies.
I believe that if it were possible to establish some criteria that must be satisfied to progress any legislation, it may be possible for robust decisions no matter which parties are in government. Some suggestions:
-The legislation is supported by both evidence and advice that is made publicly available. Much that was passed under urgency recently had no evidence base.
-Any cost/benefit analysis must include long-term environmental, social impacts (20-30 years?). Many PPP schemes would fail this because of deliberately delaying costs for following generations.
-Legislation passed under urgency requires 65% support of Parliament. Such legislation is normally required when dealing with a pandemic or disaster and will ensure greater scrutiny when the normal consultation and select committee process is not used.
-Those directly impacted by any decision or legislation are appropriately consulted.
-I also have a concern that the UN declarations (environmental and human rights etc) that we have signed are routinely ignored. Any legislation should not clash with the goals and intentions of these documents and where they do there will need to be an explanation why it was necessary.
Checks and balances are crucial to ensure any government operates ethical and evidence based way and that the rules and regulations that are established are fair and robust. It seems that the many cuts to the public service are impacting on those dealing with compliance. The cost of removing this key function of government will just result in another Pike River, another leaky building debacle and more children living in slums and being abused.
And Richard Prebble may not even understand how a company is governed, at least in NZ. I learnt on the 5-day locked-in Institute of Directors course in company directorship that the duty of the board is to the company, not the shareholders. This may seem subtle, but there is a difference. To illustrate, there is a view worth thinking about, that Fonterra is not doing nearly as well as it should because it pays too much heed to its shareholder suppliers by paying them higher than necessary prices and then paying them higher than necessary dividends, rather than retaining earnings for capital investment in the company itself.
In my view, the main reasons that current forms of democracy are not fit for purpose are:
1.) Parliament has become a forum for funded political parties who compete with each other to provide the best return for their respective donors. In effect, parliament is a competition between opposing businesses. Society, as a whole, suffers as result.
2.) The cyclic nature of elections. This encourages political expediency and discourages long term thinking.
I suggest that it could be worth trying the following tweaks to our democratic system:
1.) Ban funded political parties and require all elected politicians to swear an oath that they will represent the majority wishes of their electorate as best they can determine them.
2.) Implement rolling elections. While individual electorates could continue holding elections at 3-yearly intervals, electorates would have their elections staggered over a 3-yearly cycle. As an example rotation, New Zealand could be divided into 108 electorates, with just 3 electorates holding an election in any particular month. At the end of the 36 month cycle, the first 3 electorates would hold their next election. Parliament would be refreshed monthly and the 3 yearly cycle of country-wide hype and promises would be avoided.
3.) Local councils would be required to provide electorate offices and support services for persons wishing to stand for parliament and for serving parliamentarians within that council’s electorate. Parliamentarians would be invited to local council meetings as observers and would be provided with identical marketing opportunities to present their credentials and views to their electorate. No additional marketing spend would be allowed.
4.) Votes in parliament would require an 80% majority to pass. Otherwise, the status quo would prevail.
The proposed changes could be implemented quite simply within the next election cycle.
I thank Anne Salmond for raising this topic.
Cliff,
I don’t trust so-called ‘Independents” – what are they hiding?
It may be that a ‘business’ (especially a corporation) is not the best way to achieve global democratic outcomes. This is especially worrisome when we need fundamental change in the way society is organized in order to deal with the unprecedentedly globalized existential challenges of climate change, nuclear weapons, and generally the massive impact on the planet of the Anthropocene Age. Probably only global democracy could bring about this change.
But at this point human societies know that the old way (exploitation, including agriculture as we have known it – there are known alternatives, btw) is fundamentally challenged. This is terrifying. The terror is unsurprisingly mainstream. But the thing to note is that this most angry and most desperate government in the history of this country is politically capturing this moment of terror. If it seems that it has gone beyond what a usual National government might have been expected to try to do, perhaps that presents an opportunity to go back and evaluate history and its cultures to find the sources of this exploitation approach.