A further Comment on Geoffrey Palmer's Recent Book

Geoffrey Palmer's recent book Unbridled Power is a contribution, in the best liberal democratic political tradition to the ideology of the bourgeois parties that have inter-changeably ruled many of the advanced Western capitalist states throughout this century. It's main recommendations will appeal to the reformist ideals of people of liberal persuasion who see parliamentary democracy as the best form of government.

The linchpin of the liberal ideology is that the state apparatus must rest on a division and balance of power between three main branches: The Executive branch, the Judiciary and Parliament. If any one branch gets too powerful then rules must be drawn up to ensure that each branch can check on the other to prevent abuse of power.

Like most liberal constitutionalists nowadays, Palmer is concerned about the growing corporate-like power of the executive branch (ie the political executives and their top career civil servant policy advisers). Their secrecy in making decisions and increasingly authoritarian legislative fiats offend Palmer's bourgeois nations of "the rule of law". He has there fore made a specific recommendation to curb the growing executive monster by a written constitution based on the division of powers with checks and balances and, a Bill of Rights. (See the summary in the last chapter of the book.)

Basically, I am in favour of more open, and accountable governments and Palmer's concisely argued recommendation appeal to my liberal reformist instincts. What I do not share, however, is the liberal belief that if only more power is transferred from the Executive into the bands of the people's representatives in parliament, the state will become more "democratic".

There is really nothing original in the belief that parliament's lost power and authority should be restored to make "democracy" viable again in these turbulent times. After all, Max Weber, one of the fathers of bourgeois social science made similar recommendations, but his wisdom had no influence on subsequent political developments in his native Germany during his time.

The Cause of the Problems

Maybe one shouldn't expect too much from a legal eagle, but Palmer neither asked nor answered the fundamental questions: Why is it that today, in a sophisticated "democratic" welfare state like New Zealand, the Executive branch of government is tending to centralize power and decision-making? Why is parliament being reduced to the status of a mere talking ship?

It is evident, in various parts of the book, that Palmer basically shares the belief of most liberals, whose answer to the question would be merely that their favourite ogre Muldoon, loves power too much and has fascist tendencies. Bridle him with a written constitution and the problem will be solved. Marxists would take a different view, for they have no illusions about parliamentary democracy. As Lenin said "democracy has the best possible political shell for capitalism, and therefore, capital, once in possession of this very best shell, establishes it's power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons of institutions or parties in the bourgeois state can share it" (The State and Revolution)

New Zealand's welfare state developed and flourished after the 1930s in a period of relatively stable and successful dependent capitalism. That period of tranquility came to an end in the early 1970s as monopoly capitalism, having consolidated its international hold, went into crisis as the tendency of the rate of profit began to fall (as Marx predicted) and competition for new areas and forms of investment renewed, resulting in increased mergers, takeovers and bankruptcies.

The old form of liberal democratic state is becoming obsolete as the powerful multinationals, spanning old state boundaries, can easily ignore, cushion themselves against or take advantage of the effects of different state policies in various parts of the world. Multinational enterprise, creating inter-national problems demand larger political units to deal with them, hence the pressure is on the ideological representatives of international capitalism in the bourgeois parties in New Zealand to "restructure" the economy and the state apparatus in favour of multinational monopoly capital. Note the "back to basics" and "free enterprise and individual initiative" movement of George Chapman, within the National party. Also Ron Trotter's club of the captains of industry who are now urging political and economic union with Australia, to widen the area of competition, trade investment and markets.

Monopolies Forcing Centralism

It is in this context that one must situate the emerging monopoly power of the Executive branch of government in New Zealand as it is being subjected to contradictory pressures from big capital and small capital, the trade unions and other groups dependent on New Zealand's elaborate welfare state services. Big capital's interests must eventually win. And that is why Palmer's proposals for parliamentary reforms are merely cosmetic solutions to the anti-democratic logic of monopoly capitalism. The executive branch of the government in New Zealand has to become more powerful and secretive because that is where policies that must adversely affect workers who get laid off, small capitalists who have to go to the wall and the dismantling of the welfare system are made, and suddenly sprung on the people concerned without opportunity for consultation.

Basically, it is not in the interest of monopoly capital to be saddled with institutions for democratic consultation with people whom it regards as a barrier to the process of accumulation, as they compete with rivals for resource, technology and market advantages. It is also in that light that one can interpret Palmer's (unconscious) championing of the capitalist's classes complaints absent there being too much legislation and bureaucratic regulations in New Zealand. Note that it is not the average Kiwi that feels oppressed by regulations, or is calling for union with Australia! It is the Trotters, Turnovskys and their Lambton Quay Board room mates.

Cross-Fertilization

The other significant idea of Palmer is his recommendation that the traditional "independence" of the Civil Service lifetime career-oriented structure be changed so that there is more "cross-fertilization" between private enterprise and the government at the upper levels of policymaking. In particular he would like to see some captains of industry appointed directly to the Cabinet without elections. (Incidentally, the doyen of women liberals, Marilyn Waring expressed similar views [unclear: in] an article in National Business Review [unclear: Jua] 21st 1979).

It is not a surprising recommendation a Palmer is so enamoured of the American system of democracy where it is traditional for presidents to stack their Cabinets with former heads and employees of big busines like McNamara, Dean Archeson, Lance Vance, Ball, Kissinger, Blumenthal etc. [unclear: Th] less known systems of similar capitalist type of rule are to be found in Latin America Africa and Asian dictatorships where Cabinets are composed of heads of the military and heads of industry.

I am not here arguing that military government is likely to emerge in New Zealand but merely to point out the trend [unclear: ir] liberal democratic governments [unclear: nowada] where the representatives of [unclear: monopo] capital are not going to be satisfied with just playing a backstage pressure-group role in the formulation of state policies but are now pushing to be represented directly [unclear: at] the centre of political power. And it is liberals like Palmer and Waring who are openly exposing the fundamental contradiction in their type of democracy.

What we are witnessing is the emergence of the corporate form of government in which the state apparatus is being restructured in order to continue to guarantee the hegemony of that small class of owners/beneficaries of international monopoly capital in New Zealand and other Western countries. And what about democracy? There will still be the three yearly ritual general elections in which the general populace will be asked and (hopefully) continue to give the appearance of ratifying policies that must essentially guarantee the continued dominance of monopoly capitalism.

Strain on the Welfare State

The Welfare State had catered for too many plural interests during the boom period of capital. Now that it is in crisis, the bourgeois state has to be restructured in its favour. The question of democracy in New Zealand therefore will not be resolved by the mere creation of Parliamentary Committees with oversight powers over the executive branches or the amendment of standing orders, so long as power of monopoly capital remains unbridled.

However, for those students of Constitutional law who missed most of Palmer's lectures this year, obtaining a copy of his book is essential for [unclear: regurgittion] of his views in the finals.