"And that's the kind of government you want for us!"

Submitted by LJ Holden on 7 August, 2011 - 12:08
US presidential system

In the New Zealand public's mind, a republic equates to the US presidential system - and this is a bad thing. This was reiterated to me earlier in the week when a mate of mine threw out the above claim, while debating the US debt ceiling crisis and its fall out (and as we all now know, the US has faced a sovereign debt rating downgrade anyway). In a similar vein, Mai Chen writes in the New Zealand Herald on why the debt crisis and its resolution highlights the superiority of parliamentary systems.


We know from our own research that the New Zealand public don't want a presidential system. This is perhaps most clearly articulated by the opponents of a New Zealand republic, who not only constantly use pictures of former US president George W. Bush (see the mugshot above) but also constantly and dishonestly imply that a New Zealand republic means a powerful, executive president. We know they're being dishonest, as most of their leaders have studied constitutional politics, in full awareness of that parliamentary systems constituted as republics and semi-presidential systems are far more prevalent than presidential systems.

This, once again, emphasises our greatest challenges: a lack of understanding of what a New Zealand republic entails. The opponents of change will say and do anything to spread misinformation and fear. So long as the public equates a republic with the US system, republicanism in New Zealand won't achieve a majority of support.

Comments

Mike Wilkinson's picture
Submitted by Mike Wilkinson on 7 August, 2011 - 15:38.

Thanks for the thoughts, Lewis.  Looking at Mai Chen's article, if it's meant as an attempt to paint our political system as superior to the Americans', it's fairly laughable.  While some mention is made of the more memorable controversies from recent years, very little is made of the serious constitutional issues that have confronted our country in the last thirty years.  Chen does manage to mention, albeit dismissively, the 1984 case of Muldoon refusing to act according to the wishes of the incoming Labour Government.  Perhaps because they are less memorable, she fails to identify at least four other important constitutional issues caused when:

  • the outgoing Labour Government failing to tell the incoming 1990 National Government about its fiscal crisis, caused partly by the debacle at the BNZ
  • the ending of appeals to the Privy Council
  • the passing of the Electoral Finance Act and
  • the passing of the Seabed and Foreshore Act.
Moreover, Chen spends no time considering alternative ways the US could run govern such a diversity of people.  I think it's quite truthful to say that her article's not a serious attempt to consider the workings of a government, but merely an appeal to populist sympathies.

There must be a good argument that we should just ignore such ideas, almost completely.  What do people think if we were to respond simply by saying, "republicanism in NZ isn't about Americans (or English), it's about NZers"?  In that way, we might just be able to leave voters make up their own minds about what they think of arguments against a republic that focus on Americans.

Cheers,
Mike

LJ Holden's picture
Submitted by LJ Holden on 7 August, 2011 - 20:34.

To be fair on Mai, this is a newspaper op-ed piece with a limited word count and probably edited down - I can say from personal experience it is something of an art to get a complicated point across while working with these restrictions.


That said, you are right to point out that NZ's system isn't perfect either. In the debate I did recently on Think Tank, the Privy Council featured as an issue. It's a good one to discuss - despite the ridiculous claims some made, our judiciary hasn't fallen over or legislated from the bench (we've even had a judge resign over conflict of interest issues, showing our processes are robust - again despite what was claimed at the time). 

The number of appeals now being heard by the Supreme Court vastly outnumbers the number going to the Privy Council - justice is now more affordable and accessible. 

However, the court itself lacked legitimacy because its creation was essentially forced through on the whim of the Labour Party's 2002 manifesto (that said, as Margaret Wilson pointed out at the time, New Zealand actually had little choice - the UK merged its highest courts together into its own Supreme Court, removing the House of Lords and Privy Council's judicial functions with respect to the UK. So we had little choice in the matter.) 

Such a major change should've been put to a referendum. No ifs or buts about it.

Chair, Republican Movement - contact me online or call on +64 27 699 1350
Matt's picture
Submitted by Matt on 9 August, 2011 - 06:57.

...despite the ridiculous claims some made, our judiciary hasn't fallen over or legislated from the bench...


I've never understood why monarchists have this pathological fear of judges 'legislating from the bench.' I mean, judicial activism is as old as Magna Carta, which established the fundamental principle of common law - whereby judicial interpretations form binding legal precedent - something monarchists claim to cherish.

LJ Holden's picture
Submitted by LJ Holden on 9 August, 2011 - 21:46.

Good point Matt - it seems to be the mere mention of the "British common law" puts some monarchists into conniptions, because it's British. But then whenever a court rules in a way they disagree, it's legislating from the bench and the influence of the evil US of A...

Chair, Republican Movement - contact me online or call on +64 27 699 1350

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Syndicate content