Stephen Levine: Our politicians can't break bad old habits

Stephen Levine

Proponents of the "intelligent design" theory for the origins of our electoral system have long been dominant in the media and universities. After all, there is a great deal of evidence for this point of view.

Records show that the Labour Party established a Royal Commission in 1985 to study New Zealand's voting system and about a year later the commission produced a report recommending MMP.

A 10-year gap took place between the commission's report and the first MMP election. The system we have has never worked as its supporters had hoped and in every election parties, leaders, candidates, voters and the media struggle to see how MMP can be made to work for them.

In this election, more than any of the previous three, people have been preoccupied with personal gain and private grievance, astonishing for a country that has tried to cultivate a more high-minded national self-image.

As we reel from one tax and benefit package to the next, we see that we are not, after all, so special, as citizens and voters. It may have been unduly flattering, but who would have thought a nation so attracted to idealistic self-imagery - New Zealand, the country too proud to bend to the Americans (over anything); the country too honourable to give in to the Japanese (over whaling) - could have surrendered itself so thoroughly to matters so short-term.

It seems almost, for us, an anti-Churchillian moment: never - or at least not lately - has so much been offered by so few to so many, with, however, thus far so little of anything of actual benefit to show for it.

When it comes to changing our electoral system and our political habits - changing, in other words, the way we organise our public affairs - introducing MMP was not the end; it was, unfortunately, little more than the end of the beginning.

This year, as we move through our fourth MMP election campaign, we find it is still being fought by politicians who learned their techniques of political combat under first-past-the-post rules.

Thus the adversarial system that so distorts our parliamentary debate lives on in the campaign, as the major party leaders undermine and denounce one another.

The Prime Minister promises "a better future for all New Zealanders", but does her idea of inclusiveness, that pledge to go "forward together", include National, its supporters and its voters, also New Zealanders?

Dr Brash promises "one law for all", but fails to understand that sweeping statements promising to unilaterally abrogate Treaty and parliamentary arrangements with Maori are acts of discourtesy far more significant than raising your voice towards your opponent.

Those who see evidence for "intelligent design" in the existence of MMP can point to the fact that neither Labour nor National has been able to govern alone since the system started.

Those who see only evolution at work - a system adapting from campaign to campaign, mutating to survive - can point to the desperate demagoguery dominating our foreign policy discussions; to the multi-billion dollar deceit over surpluses and the availability of funds for social programmes; and to the dangerous deficit of ideas when it comes to describing the way in which our constitutional arrangements can be adapted to our circumstances.

We may only be able to complete the transition to MMP as desired - that is, to a system in which diatribe is replaced by dialogue - once our present political leadership passes from the scene. The hope is that, waiting for that to happen, not be too much damage will need to be undone.

Polls show voters rearranging their preferences with each new event, the softness of their attachments revealing a conscious cynicism about the packages of promises being tossed their way.

What voters may conclude from a campaign like this is that what they need most are more frequent elections - seemingly only at such times can vast sums of money be found, and pledged, to make their lives more attractive.

Even when positive policies emerge, they are often presented without information or context. For instance, a health policy promises 7500 extra cataract operations over three years. Where does this number come from? Why 7500 and not, say, 8000? Or more?

How many cataract operations are needed? How many people are waiting to have them? How long should a person have to wait to have a cataract operation when we have - really as a type of miracle - the technology to make this operation virtually routine?

A party calls for Treaty claims to be lodged by 2008; another suggests 2010. Settlements are to be completed by 2015, says one party: no, by 2020, says another.

These are simply random numbers, utterly disassociated from any supporting facts. They emerge in speeches and on websites, arbitrary dates flung at voters but entirely bereft of any argument on their behalf.

The argument for "intelligent design" would give New Zealanders, facing the near-certainty of a coalition government, some way actually to vote for one.

National says it prefers United Future; so, too, does Labour. Obviously Peter Dunne does as well. But how is this to be accomplished? What do the Prime Minister and Dr Brash suggest should happen? Where are these votes to come from?

With our two votes we elect a constituency MP and a Parliament. We do not, directly, elect a government. We may, somehow, in the end, get the government that most of us want - and escape the alternatives that most of us want to avoid. But if we do, it will have been a partial triumph at best, our leaders damaged by the campaign, the outcome as much a matter of chance as of deliberate choice. We can - and should - do better.

* Stephen Levine is professor of political science at Victoria University of Wellington and was the recipient in July of a Wallace Award from the Electoral Commission for his "contribution to public understanding of electoral matters".