KEY POINTS:
The Allies imposed proportional representation as a system of democratic governance on a defeated Germany with one purpose in mind: to stop any one political party dominating any future Government.
This is the system New Zealand now endures. Only twice last century did any one political party ever break the 50 per cent threshold and govern on its own under our MMP proportional system.
MMP does work, slowly, in some Nordic countries where the smaller parties are mature and based on historic principles.
Except for the Greens, New Zealand's smaller parties represent the frustrated ambitions of individuals who were elected to constituencies under the banner of major parties.
Then disappointment, vanity and frustration saw them leave their parties and set up new political vehicles for their ambitions. None would have been elected initially without their earlier party label.
The system is inherently unstable. That's its purpose and one of the reasons New Zealanders supported this system - they wanted less power in the hands of politicians.
Some even thought they would get less politics. Now it's not who wins the election but who can stitch together a deal with other parties after the election that decides who makes up the Government.
It's worked reasonably well over the past few elections, with a few sordid deals that were not made clear until later after the election.
In 1996, NZ First leader Winston Peters swore never to join a conservative Government. He did because they offered the key Finance Ministry. Three years ago Winston said he didn't want the baubles of office and then took the Foreign Ministry on the fiction that he was not a member of the Government. Anything can happen.
Present polling firmly suggests the Maori Party could hold the balance and determine who forms the Government. The public has the right to know what this means and the media have a responsibility to find out.
Note that all previous coalition deals have been struck when the economy was robust. All were about spending more money and favouring constituencies that the small parties wanted to reward.
How a coalition can be struck when there's an economic downturn, even crisis, has not been tested under MMP.
No major party dares question the Maori Party because they know they will have to do a deal. Best save that until later.
But what some Maori Party leaders have said should be reason for some tough media questioning. For example, when a leader says the party wants equal representation in a Government because it's not about numbers, it's a partnership - what does that mean? Sorry, democracy is about numbers.
I heard a compelling argument on radio that Maori MPs didn't want to be in Cabinet but only wanted power over expenditure on Maori people. What does that mean?
Does it mean what I think - channelling taxpayers' money for Maori through Maori institutions? Does it cover education, health and what else?
The claim that the Tuhoe people ought to have their own Government like Scotland went unchallenged. Scotland has its own courts, police, education system and ability to tax. If this is what it means, this is an issue of historic importance that must be argued before an election.
Others have suggested an upper house of equal representation, Maori and non-Maori, a partnership, that could veto the decisions of the House of Representatives. These are issues fundamental to the country's future.
These changes can be brought in by stealth, beginning with a powerless council of elders and Maori models of parallel development. Devolution and self-reliance - sounds good?
I sensed the dangers inherent in such political opportunism some years ago and prepared legislation on how, over several election cycles, we could address these many complex issues through a series of constitutional conventions that could eventually give New Zealand a constitution.
Early this year when I wrote about this in feature articles and contacted MPs in all parties, I was overwhelmed in a tidal wave of apathy. New Zealand is changing the nature of its constitutional arrangements by stealth, without an overall coherent vision, and most certainly without a conversation or consensus among the public.
The honours system was abolished, as were rights to go to the Privy Council. Conventions have been disregarded and the public service's independence threatened.
I'm no conservative, but has any one Government the right to make such far-reaching changes without explanation and the will of the people being expressed?
Politicians seek flexibility through secrecy and room to manoeuvre. Just to ask these questions risks being called "anti-Maori".
I fear that after this election, deals will be struck that will change the nature of our society and democracy.
I hope I'm proven wrong.
* Mike Moore is a former Prime Minister of New Zealand and Director-General of the World Trade Organisation.
