.jpg)
Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 25, No. 5. 1962.
Outline Policy of a Campaign for Strengthening Democracy
Outline Policy of a Campaign for Strengthening Democracy
General Basic Proposition
We believe that the majority of people in New Zealand believe in and advocate democracy as a form of government. Our concept of democracy is that the people must decide the over-all objectives of government by making the value-judgments associated with government. It is the job of the political organizations and experts to present the issues to the electorate in a form in which the issues of Fact are clear cut. The electorate is able then to decide between proferred over-all policies and objectives as a matter of individual conscience, belief and value judgment. This takes government out of the realm of "decision by the experts" in whose hands administrative decisions must largely be left and places the over-all guidance regarding general basic policy, a matter in which no expert knowledge is required—with the people. We consider that at present the political processes in this country are not presenting issues in a suitable form and the following frequently expressed criticisms illustrate, and largely result from this failure.
Prevailing Common Criticisms of Politics
| (a) | Politics has descended to bribery of the electorate. |
| (b) | There is no long term planning on which to base economic and social policy in the different period ahead. |
| (c) | There is insufficient stability in the administration of policies regarding imports, credit, etc. |
| (d) | Little leadership is offered by the politicians and debate is frequently limited to arguing about the reliability of facts rather than to questions of past and future policy. |
The Frequently Suggested Solution
Over the past two years a frequently suggested solution to these problems has been the institution of a 4 or 5 year term of Parliament. It has been argued that most of the above faults would be decreased if there were fewer elections and a longer term of office for each government. This attitude has extended far enough for one Wellington newspaper to advocate, almost unopposed, an extension of term by agreement made before the next General Election between the two major political parties without referring the issue to the people. Such a suggestion could only have been advocated if there was widespread acceptance of such a policy, and this at the moment appears to be the case. This group has been formed to present to the public the vast implications of such a step and to suggest alternative solutions to the admitted defects in our political situation while retaining and strengthening democracy. We feel that New Zealanders have not as yet been presented with the implications involved in a longer term of Parliament, but that when fully informed they would not contemplate such a step.
Principal Criticisms of a 4 or 5 Year Term
| 1. | It would involve a direct reduction in the people's right to determine the objectives of government by decreasing the frequency with which their voice can be heard. |
| 2. | While a longer term might not be so significant in the case of a "laissez-faire" government (i.e., a government with little interference with the individual), New Zealand governments are continually enacting legislation which profoundly affects the individual and this needs to be closely controlled by the people. This is particularly so when this power can (and has been) based on a small Parliamentary majority representing a minority of the population. |
| 3. | With a longer term a party would be given greater opportunity to perpetuate itself in power by holding elections at the economically and politically most propitious time (as is done in the United Kingdom). |
| 4. | The enhanced security which the government would then enjoy would increase the arbitrariness of administration (e.g. give increased scope for secret agreements) and increase the power of bureaucracy, pressure groups and ideological elements within the ruling party at the expense of the people. This security of tenure would, under the influence of those groups, tend to lead to greater experimentation in administration. A change of government would then result in greater swings in government policy and less rather than more, effective stability. Progress would then be achieved by large fluctuations in policy rather than a steady trend in accord with the will of the people. Overseas experience (e.g. Australia) shows the increased arbitrariness and greater extremes in policy resulting from longer Parliamentary terms. |
| 5. | The advocates of a 4 or 5 year term overlook the fact that a government has social as well as economic ends. Even if a longer term increased economic stability, which is doubtful (ref. argument (4) and e.g. Australia), this would not justify an abrogation of the people's right to have a frequent say on the many social issues (social security, education, law, industrial relations, etc.). |
| 6. | A longer term could well lead to even greater political apathy. The ordinary voter would feel that he had so little opportunity to express his opinion and that when he did there were so many issues involved that he might well lose interest. It would be almost impossible to express an opinion of the 10 year's government being considered (the previous term and the term to come), simply with a "yes" or "no" vote. |
The Problem of Information
Unlike advocates of the five year term, who consider that the prevailing dissatisfaction with politics can be cured by reducing the power of the electorate, we suggest that the democratic solution is to increase the quality and quantity of information upon which both government and electorate base their decisions. New Zealand as a nation has long suffered from inadequate information, planning and research, and democratic government has suffered even more so. In a democracy it is not sufficient that government departments have information and research on important issues (and there is strong ground for believing that even here, within the departments, little research and evaluation is being conducted) but this information must be freely available to the public.
Summary
While our solution would be more difficult to institute than that of the "five year termers" it is a real solution and not simply a postponement of the problems. Above all it would protect and strengthen democracy while at the same time yielding huge dividends in terms off better, more informed government, and planned growth. Our intention is to publicise this programme in the hope that it will be a useful contribution to democracy, and will cause the people of New Zealand to protect and strenthen that process rather than let their democratic rights slip away.
—Campaign for Strengthening Democracy.