Dialogue: Our nation in peril as institutions crumble

Our society is based upon, and underpinned by, eight institutions of state. One by one they are being undermined or ignored by successive governments, writes MICHAEL MURRAY*.

The demilitarisation of the Air Force should concern all New Zealanders, for it concerns citizen welfare and the public good in their widest senses.

In essence, it is an assault on one of the eight historic institutions of state. These great institutions, the foundation on which the modern state is set, are the monarchy, Parliament, common law, the jury system, the Church, universities, the public service and the armed forces.

One by one they are being undermined or ignored by governments in New Zealand; the demise of the Air Force is just one of the more visible examples.

The notion of sovereignty in government has been described as doing right to the citizen or, perhaps in better words, letting right be done. Have our governments been doing right to the citizen or letting right be done?

Each of the institutions of state has to a greater or lesser extent been (and continues to be) undermined or ignored by governments.

This is not letting right be done. Governments daily use the powers of these institutions, yet on occasion interfere with their operation, sometimes without any idea of their origin or purpose.

The monarchy is being challenged. Political leaders question its applicability and talk of a republic. Mostly these ideas are no more than political opinion, all of which is short-term.

Their perpetrators are willing to swap the soft-handed rule of a constitutional monarch, free from political influence, where prime ministers are not as powerful as they might like to be, for a politically appointed or elected president.

Such a president might well owe favours for appointment or election. Such a president could be either strong (a despot ignoring the responsibilities of sovereignty) or weak (incapable of letting right be done or influenced by political imperatives).

New Zealand has a relatively short tradition of parliamentary government. Parliament is supposed to hold the Government to account, and parliamentary approval is required to spend and raise money.

Under the first-past-the-post voting system, the Government effectively controlled Parliament. But under MMP, the Government is less certain of controlling parliamentary proceedings.

The two major parties find this inconvenient. Thus, both seem set on changing the electoral process.

We tend to take common law for granted. Its guiding principal is to bring real happiness to the individual. This law is unchanging, and runs our lives.

Parliament also makes laws - statutes. These are temporary laws supposedly to deal with great problems. When things are right and citizens are happy, there should be no need for statutory remedies.

In New Zealand, Parliament passes about 140 acts a year, supposedly in pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The result seems, instead, to have divided citizens and failed the happiness test.

The main task of politicians now seems to be determining the nature and extent of that great happiness. So is common law in danger of being pushed aside by statute law?

The jury system has been a fundamental and unalterable feature of justice. Twelve ordinary citizens, not an officer of the state, decide whether a person is guilty.

The system has been attacked as too costly, and for making trials too lengthy. Juries have also been criticised for being unreliable fact-finders, especially where the evidence or legalities are complex - as well as for bringing individual prejudices to their verdicts.

Under the pretext of efficiency, some politicians are taking renewed interest in the need for a jury system without giving any thought to the overall effectiveness of the judicial system.

The Church is an essential element in our system of government. Most English-speaking nations are deeply religious and New Zealand is no exception. Whenever there is a special event such as Christmas, or a catastrophic event, citizens rally in an act of worship and devotion, regardless of the religion or denomination.

Christianity is central to our law and freedom. However, there is an increasing tendency for the Church to be criticised by governments for intervening in Government policy or for supporting events that promote doing right to the citizen.

One might think that if the Church has something to say about citizens, it would be wise for Parliament and the Government to take note.

In any society, a steady flow of great ideas based on knowledge and the truth is vital. At their best, universities are institutes of the state where the finest ideas are studied and conveyed simply.

These ideas will greatly influence students, some of whom will later take part in government or become part of the institutes of state themselves. Without universities, they will not have the mind that will let the right thing be done.

Sadly, there has been a reduction in the capability and capacity of our universities because of a theoretical lack of money. Universities are being cajoled into concentrating on the short-term needs of the corporate world and vocational pursuits. This tends to promote self-interest and a narrow perspective.

The public service implements the decisions of Parliament. It also advises the Government. Nevertheless, public servants are servants of the Crown, not the Government. Their concern is with letting right be done.

For stable government, a strong and impartial public service is vital. But changes in the 1980s and 1990s significantly affected the environment in which public servants work. While these changes were designed to remove bureaucracy and give public servants the freedom and accountability to manage, they left the public service with serious weaknesses.

Senior public servants no longer have security of tenure. That means a public servant is no longer able to advise the Government without the possibility of political displeasure influencing job security.

Public servants are, therefore, less likely to resign over a matter of principle (the resignation of a senior public servant in such circumstances is a major embarrassment to a government). Furthermore, with a weak public service the Government is more likely to ignore its advice.

The military is by no means the least of the great and historic institutions of the state. Throughout history a state without an armed force has been the exception.

The goals of a nation change slowly over time. Regardless, all domestic and foreign policy should be consistent with these national goals.

The goals fall into three types: long-term objectives may be achieving world peace or effective world government; medium-term objectives are usually to do with social, economic and political development; and core objectives are those that citizens may be prepared to take up arms for. They include the preservation of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the preservation of religious, social or multiracial identity.

Armed services are critical to these core interests. That is why large, small, non-aligned and neutral countries all maintain armed services. The most peaceful nation must be prepared to fight in the last resort if it wishes to protect its core interests.

Governments in New Zealand have slowly but surely reduced the armed forces to a level that is a disgrace. The demilitarisation of the Air Force effectively dismantles this institute of state.

History tells us that you interfere with ancient and fundamental laws and the great and historic institutes of state at your peril. In a world increasingly characterised by despotic governments, we should remember this when changes to these institutes are contemplated.

* Michael Murray is an Auckland analyst and adviser to industry, commerce and Government.