"Helen Clark for President"
If there's one argument opponents of a New Zealander as New Zealand's head of State can always rely on, it's the good old "a republic means President Helen Clark!" chestnut. This argument gains its validity not through reason but shear repetition - if anyone critically thinks about it, the likelihood of Helen Clark being elected New Zealand's head of State are very low.
Under the two electoral methods proposed (either a three quarters majority of parliament or direct election) a "President Helen Clark" is unlikely. Under the parliamentary model, three-quarters of MPs would need to vote for Helen Clark over another candidate. That isn't likely to happen, so there won't be a "President Helen Clark" under that model. In fact, going by the experience of other parliamentary republics following this model elsewhere in the world, it's unlikely a former politician would be our head of State.
Direct election is a different kettle of fish. However, it's unlikely given the vehement opposition to Helen Clark that she would even want to run for the position. Given Clark's former preferred prime minister polling, she wouldn't have the numbers either. Again, the experience of other parliamentary republics suggests it's highly unlikely a former prime minister could win an election.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \""Helen Clark for President"\""){kind=small}
Comments
Of course, in the event there is a politican that is elected, they also frequently have another profession outside politics - for example, the current President of Austria is a Professor of Political Science and the ones before him were often playwrights and poets. In Finland, you have a human rights lawyer. In Singapore, you often have a Chief Justice or so, although thats due to its strict criteria for the Presidency.
And, of course, the monarchists forget a) most of our former GGs have been either former politicans' or some other political hack; and b) that the Queen is the most cunnying, devious politican of all time - a relentless PR machine and all the anti-democratic values are done and performed in her name! (Politics is, by definition, the allocation of values).
I also note that it would seem fair to say that countries with direct-election tend to be more stable: Austria, Finland, Iceland, Signapore, Ireland tend to be doing better than Spain (cf. Ireland 12% unemployment rate with Spain's 22%); the UK (hahaha - lucky if it ranks in the top 10 for anything nowadays); Sweden (well, today its a violent society and frankly I'm surprised it still scores highly) etc.
In fact, 3 out of 5 bottom five in the 2010 Failed States Index (the lower the better) - 2 of them direct-election, 1 of them the glorious Swiss system - the world's only democracy. Australia was beaten, of course, by Austria (direct-election), Switzerland (CIR), Ireland (direct-election), Finland (direct-election). The mother of all monarchies - the UK - is not even in the 'sustainable' group, and is neck-and-neck with Signapore. Although Norway is no. 1, I think thats has to do with its a) oil and b) its good policies such as offering all people under 24 a guaranteed job. It's not constrained by neo-liberal straightjackets like poorer African countries and some Western countries.
Post new comment