"Colourful list eyes Irish presidency"
The New Zealand Herald has finally woken up to Ireland's upcoming presidential election, profiling the two leading candidates: gay rights campaigner and independent senator David Norris and former Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and former IRA leader. Norris also previously called for the Republic of Ireland to rejoin the Commonwealth of Nations, a move that would be welcomed by republicans across the Commonwealth.
With 27 days go to, the debate has begun in earnest. There's videos aplenty on YouTube from the various candidates - seven in total. This is despite the difficult process for gaining a nomination for the presidency. Here Gay Mitchell, candidate for the Fine Gael Party, discusses the need for the ceremonial president to act as the country's guide, while independent candidate Mary Davis adds the president needs to speak for those who don't have a voice.
Despite its flaws, the Irish presidency is still the best guide for how an independent New Zealand head of state could look. The good news is we don't have to go through the violent process Ireland did to take the next step in our journey as a nation - we just need politicians willing to take the issue on.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \""Colourful list eyes Irish presidency"\""){kind=small}
Comments
Politicians will take the issue on when the people allow them no alternative - not before. Therefore I suggest that logically our efforts should be directed to the people rather than the politicians.
Great to have you back Geoff :-).
Geoff/Lewis, when it comes to the people versus the politicians, I can't see any reliable distinction between who will be the leader and who will be led. Even within just this country, history is littered with examples of politicians leading the debate forward (such as the 1984 Labour Government) and, when they had a clear alternative, the people refusing to be lead (such as the Labour Government ousted in 2008).
The underlying problem for a New Zealand republic is that there hasn't yet been sustained public debate. The debate that is going on is low-level. It's all very well that constitutional conventions, reviews, "stock takes" etc, discuss the issue, but unless the general public are engaged then we won't make much progress. How we get the public engaged is the real issue - as you say Mike, we can only hope to meet both goals.
Lewis, I agree getting public debate is an important challenge. I question whether it really is our "biggest" one, though. Whether by way of public sentiment or some noble politician adopting our cause, I think large scale public debate will come, it's simply a matter of time. For now, I think the Movement needs to hang in there, encourage all it can and remain true to its cause.
I believe a bigger challenge than public debate will be bringing about a stable republic. This is a big risk we're taking: can we help the country reach a sensible political structure without being captured by special interests? There will be many political pitfalls along the way, but I think we have it within ourselves to take a jolly good shot at this. Here's wishing us luck for having the smarts and the strength to carry it through!
True, but I think the threat of "special interests" capturing the process is much overstated. The said the same thing about MMP, but that clearly hasn't transpired.
Special interests will always try to capture the state, often to their own detriment. That is the irony. When an interest group (social class, ethnic group or ideological persuasion) is able to fully implement its agenda, the normal social and political checks and balances cease to be effective, and the system becomes unstable. That is pretty much what has happened throughout the western world over the past three decades, and a Republic of Aotearoa, which will emerge from the current crisis, will have to take care to avoid going down a similar path. We need to be principled, but at the same time we will need to be open to other points of view if we are to avoid the mistakes of the monarchist regime.
Careful not to get muddled on what I mean, Lewis. I think the objective is a stable political structure. A potential road block to reaching it is the multitude of special interests.
There are obvious special interests - for example Maori, feminist, gay groups and religious groups are identifiable special interests. They have a presence in the present system, but not, I suggest, a dominant one. The special interests which gained ascendancy in the Labour government 1984-90, and which came in behind Don Brash when he lead the National Party are less obvious, but more of a concern, because of theiir potential to create social and economic instability, even while presesrving an appearance of political stability.
All expressions special interests are regrettable, but they are a fact of life, and they cannot be forcibly expunged from the social and political order. They can only be eclipsed by the promotion of higher values, both in word and deed, and through critical political discourse. It falls to the republican movement to promote those values and that discourse, because the monarchist regime is incapable of doing so.
Special interests are always present in any system of government. Usually they're as simple as factions. Even the old Soviet Union had them - hardliners and reformists. There seems to be a human tendancy to group together for mutual benefit.
Under FPP there were special interests. Don't forget, the Labour Party was the political expression of trade unions' form of social democracy, while the National Party was a coalition of farmers (Reform) and business (Liberal/United) interests. Then there was the social crediters...
The difference between FPP and MMP in this regard is that FPP kept a lot of these special interests hidden. Personally, I think this is part of what makes MMP superior to FPP - at least the interests are now out in the open. The "Kingmaker" issue has only arisen once, at the 1996 general election, our first under MMP.
As for Peters, he's yesterday's man.
I have to agree with Lewis that the MMP electoral system did not create special interests or social diversity, but it has provided a means for some of those diverse interests to obtain their own political expression.
At the same time, I suggest that it is premature to write off Winston Peters as "yesterday's man", and more particularly it is a mistake to discount the political attitudes, and the social interests which he represents. Here in Rotorua he was greeted by an enthusiastic audience numbering perhaps a couple of hundred when he launched his 2011 electoral campaign at the Citizens Club. Peters has the capacity to arise phoenix like from the political ashes because he either retains, or could regain, much of the basis of support which he, and the Peters clan, enjoyed in Tai Tokerau and the wider reaches of Maoridom.
There is a tendency to assume that the state of politics in New Zealand is as it is portrayed in the mass media, when in fact there is a lot going on under the radar.
True, but even if Peters does make it back into Parliament, I doubt he'd be in the same kingmaker position as he was in 1996, or that a Labour-led coalition could retake power.
It's probably important to remember that we're a special interest group as well, although our aim is not the "capture" the state, but to reform it through a democratic process.
I suspect that we take a very different view of what constitutes special interests, then, Geoff. Insofar as the feminist, green, peace, Maori renaissance, LGBT and other social movements that date from the sixties are concerned, I view them as part of healthy democratic expansion and the flourishing of civil society. Their political engagement is constructive, and they enhance citizenship and democratic participation through their presence.
I'd reserve the term 'special interests' for those that tend to obstruct political engagement, citizenship rights and responsibilities and healthy pluralist democracy- the New Right business lobby, religious social conservatives, anti-immigrant racists, anti-feminists and their ilk.
As I pointed out below, even republicans are a "special interest" group - in fact every political movement is.
It is tempting to label those we disagree with as "special interest" groups, and those with whom we sympathise as "part of healthy democratic expansion".
I would classify "public interest' groups as those who are concerned to promote the interests of all citizens without regard to class, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation etc, and special interests as those that are actively promoting the interests of particular groups who are identified and distinguished by any particular characteristic.
"Special interest groups" are a very necessary part of the political system when they act to correct social inequities which the general body politic has failed to redress. They only become disruptive of the public good when they function to entrench inequity and to exacerbate divisions within society. As others have noted, the most insidious are often those covert special interests which try to portray themselves as acting purely in the general public interest.
Post new comment