Category: Democracy
The IT revolution is dramatically changing how we live, in a way that is probably just as profound as the agrarian and industrial revolutions of previous ages. This new revolution has given people control over the way they communicate - in a manner that few of us could have ever imagined. As with all revolutions, change has casualties.
Some time back in the 1990s, I wrote an article that began: “The newspaper you are holding in your hands is an endangered species.” The risk to newspapers that worried me then had to do with media freedom. That remains a matter of concern to journalists – probably always will be – but it has been replaced by a far more urgent threat. Dismal financial results reportedly recently by the two big newspaper groups, APN News and Media and Fairfax Media, confirmed what had long been obvious: that the newspaper industry is reeling from the impact of the internet.
Over the last few years, there has been a growing consensus amongst the leaders of western nations – including the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium, and Australia - that policies and practices that divide citizens along ethnic and cultural lines are dangerous. In Holland, the Dutch government decided to abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that had created a parallel society within the Netherlands: “It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands.”
In January 2013 I was asked by the secretariat of the Government Constitutional Advisory Panel to take part in audio and video taped interviews. The invitation was probably issued on the basis that I have written extensively about Treaty issues and that I am a member of the Independent Constitutional Review Panel that has its presence on this NZCPR website. I wish to share these interviews with NZCPR readers and raise troubling issues that emerged for me while doing the interviews.
During last week’s discussions at Waitangi, the Prime Minister stated that he favoured a four-year term for Parliament and a fixed election date. Labour’s David Shearer, the Green’s Metiria Turei, New Zealand First’s Winston Peters, and United Future’s Peter Dunne all agreed. ACT’s John Banks said he didn’t think the public would support a move to increase the job security of politicians, and the Maori Party said they didn’t have a view.
The Constitutional Advisory Panel has kicked off its public consultation efforts. One of the issues the panel will look into is the term of Parliament, most likely by assessing whether it should be increased to four years, and whether we should have a fixed election. Of all the matters it is discussing, this seems likely to be the one that is most likely to see some traction.
It was a week for political speeches. It began last Monday with the soaring rhetoric of US President Barack Obama’s inaugural address, which included inspirational references to nationhood and equality: “Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people… We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own”.
The latest round of full and final settlements was supposed to put an end to racial issues and let us get on with the serious business of living together and surviving as one people, planning for the future. At the very least, the settlements should surely have given us a breathing space of a few years, before our local Mafiosi turned up again for the next instalment of the protection money. But no.
There are turning points in public affairs when parliamentary parties cross an invisible line. We saw it when former Prime Minister Helen Clark forced her government to support the anti-smacking law against the wishes of the public. No, the sky didn’t fall in, but a resolve developed that ensured she lost her premiership.
Do you think we live in a democracy? In our system of representative democracy if those we elect are not listening to and carrying out the wishes of those that have elected them, then what democracy do we have?
Loading ...
