Ewan McGregor: The dignity of dissent

John Key has taken on the banner of the flag, receiving mixed reactions from around the nation.

There are many definitions of democracy; "the art of the possible" is one.

This means that for democratic leadership to succeed the leader must command a majority, not just in electoral votes, but, once in office, public sentiment if his/her visions and aspirations are to be achieved. Sometimes they get it wrong and public opinion falls short of that needed for victory. Failure is an inherent risk of endeavour.

We saw such an outcome in the late amalgamation debate and we may, or may not, see it in the flag debate; two obvious examples of political leaders seeking to lead. The campaign to unify local government in Hawke's Bay failed decisively, and the issue has been laid to rest, or should have been. (No evocable image could possibly reignite the divisions of that debate more than Bill Dalton's graceless Christmas card. Is it its wit that excites the mirth? Or the humiliation of the Mayor of Hastings? You be the judge.)

But the issues of amalgamation, other than the debate itself, will receive no mention in this comment. This is about something else - the entitlement of dignity of those who democratically and publicly pursue their a vision, or what they believe to be a compelling cause. The lengthy amalgamation debate brought out the best and the worst in public discourse. Of the latter there was, in my view, far to much.

It came from both sides, but overwhelmingly from those opposed. Characterising those on the other side of the debate as "poor little rich girl", "little old lady in the twilight of her years", "Judas Iscariot", among other examples, denigrated the seriousness of the issue.

We are seeing such personalisation now in the flag debate. Political leaders from various parties have been advocating a new flag for years, but it has been John Key who has picked up the banner, so to speak, and marched into battle with it. Frankly, it is hard to understand the vitriol that is being attached to the Prime Minister over this initiative - and much else too, for that matter. How more democratic can the process be?

What we have today is a social media that really gives currency to such denigration, and overwhelmingly anonymously too. Just look at the texts and website comment that this paper generously facilitates. Of course if someone wants to anonymously text a thank you to an unknown person for handing in a lost wallet or helping replace a flat tyre on the roadside then that's fine. But to me, any public criticism of an individual or institution must carry the name of the commentator.

Further, some of these texts are not merely critical, but seriously misrepresent the facts. Most public officeholders understandably feel it inappropriate to respond to anonymous comment. But then, the misleading statement stands. So - no name, no publication. This is not a restriction on free speech but merely makes the courage of comment a requirement.

(Actually, such a condition for letters to the editor is relatively new. I recall that it was the New Zealand Listener that first made it a condition about 40 years ago, and was seen as quite a radical initiative, prompting adverse comment. Now it's universally accepted. What's the difference between a letter and a text?)

If one looks at our history you will see that promoting change has always taken a measure of courage to a greater or lesser extent, for we instinctively resist the challenge of change. Interestingly, perhaps predictably, it has been Liberal and Labour governments that have been most willing to innovate, sometimes at their cost, but mainly subsequently earning the endorsement of history. The Fourth Labour Government's reforms (Rogernomics) is the major standout of my lifetime. But there have been examples, too, from conservative governments; Gordon Coates's establishment of the Reserve Bank and Sid Holland's abolition of the unelected Legislative Council come to mind. Key's intended flag reform may seem small fry, but it's an example nevertheless.

So, on the local scene, I suspect that not many would promoted Lawrence Yule and Rebecca Turner for Person of the Year. But I willingly publicly honour them for their preparedness to pursue a vision, and for maintaining their dignity in the face of some cruel attacks, and eventual defeat.

We need such people with the courage of their conviction, prepared to climb up out of the trench and march into the line of fire. And a Happy Christmas to all.

-Ewan McGregor is a former deputy chairman of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

-Business and civic leaders, organisers, experts in their field and interest groups can contribute opinions. The views expressed here are the writer's personal opinion, and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz