Editorial: Clumsiness not exclusive to Brethren

Opinion

Those seeking to influence the outcome of an election should feel an obligation to fully inform the electorate. Doing so demonstrates a commitment to the democratic process. Obviously, some would prefer not to.

People with a particular religious philosophy may feel this will have a bearing on how their political message is received. Clearly, that influenced members of the Exclusive Brethren Church to take a secretive tack when releasing anti-Government and anti-Green pamphlets.

Only after the Greens identified the names listed on the leaflets were the seven men prepared to be upfront about their activity. Their covertness, even if within the bounds of the Electoral Act, was reprehensible.

Worse, though, and as they must have feared, their confession served only to invite ridicule and accusations of hypocrisy.

At a press conference, the Exclusive Brethren confirmed that their conscience disqualified them from voting. Governments were, they said, raised up and dismissed by God. If so, voting becomes a futile exercise.

Nonetheless, they would spend $500,000 in an attempt to raise up the National Party in the eyes of voters. The gymnastics involved, logically and ethically, in sustaining such a position were palpable.

The episode should have contributed a small footnote to this election campaign. New Zealanders are highly unlikely to be susceptible to the views of an ultra-conservative group of fewer than a few thousand people that, by and large, divorces itself from worldly matters. But clumsy political reactions throughout the political spectrum have elevated its significance.

In the first instance, it has demonstrated again the ham-fisted nature of the National Party's campaign. The Exclusive Brethren's problematic profile demanded that the party spell out its relationship fully and immediately. What ensued, however, was confusion and evasiveness in equal measure.

National spent much time trying to draw thin parallels with trade union support for the Labour Party. It had half a point. Wealthy unions do purport to be separate from Labour for Electoral Act purposes but use considerable sums of advertising in support of the policies of one party and against the other major contender.

They do, however, make it clear who has placed the advertising. National's leader, Don Brash, sought to distance himself from the sect. Pointedly, he refused to say whether he had been told about the pamphlet campaign. His deputy, however, was adamant the party was unaware of it.

Only yesterday did Dr Brash finally admit he knew the Exclusive Brethren were going to distribute the pamphlets. Now, he, like the members of the church, must face the consequence of failing, at the earliest opportunity, to be open with the public.

The strident reaction of the Greens and the Labour Party was equally ill-judged. In themselves, the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets are unremarkable. Most would see them as adding to the grist of robust electioneering; part of any campaign's vigorous contesting of ideas.

Yet the two parties are clearly fearful that the religious right could play an important role in this election. They worry that its role in President George W. Bush's re-election could be replicated here.

The concern is not valid. Historically, parties allied closely to religion have won little electoral support in this country. The dearth of backing for the Destiny New Zealand and Christian Heritage parties in today's Herald Digipoll survey suggests this is not about to change.

The Electoral Act does not demand transparency from those seeking to influence voting. Those not delivering it run a considerable risk, however. The sort of risk that, as the Exclusive Brethren have discovered, can lead to more harm than good being done to those they seek to raise up.