Paul Buchanan: Know-all state puts our freedom at risk

COMMENT

Writing about the Argentine "dirty war" of 1976-80, political scientist Guillermo O'Donnell noted the "harvest of fear" that the dictatorship reaped on the body politic.

In the wanton and systematic use of misinformation, silence and physical brutality, the so-called Process of National Reorganisation sowed the seeds of dread and alienation among the civilian population.

But it also cultivated its own destruction, precipitated by the ill-fated reoccupation of the Falklands as a diversion from pressing economic problems and mass discontent.

That bitter harvest is still being reaped, both in the ongoing attempts to bring to justice those responsible for atrocities, as well as in damaged psyches of all those touched by the malevolent hand of the military regime.

The Argentine junta - as well as those of Chile and elsewhere - operated on the basis of assumed impunity. It did what it pleased, when it pleased, however it pleased. It engaged in state and personal terror in the vacuum of silent acquiescence that was the context of rule.

Yet eventually the murderous acts of the dictatorship came due and are slowly, sadly, being paid.

The more important point is that the culture of impunity is an institutional one, in that certain institutions are "reserved domains" of power: they serve only to serve themselves, and are accountable to no one else.

The situation in New Zealand today is far different from the atrocities of the Argentine pathology, but the makings of a perverse form of electoral authoritarianism based on a culture of impunity and the logic of silence are in place.

This is a country in which the intelligence services account only to themselves, secure in their legislated right to withhold "classified" information from those they ostensibly serve and defend.

In spite of professed commitment to democratic principles, this is a country where the leadership of the governing party disregards the basic rules of governance - taking account of public opinion - so as to tell the public what is in their best interest regardless of the majority opinion.

That, perhaps, would be fine if it were done on matters of principle, but it is not. Opportunism and expediency are the political mantras of the day, be it on the issue of aerial spraying of unwanted pests, GM moratoriums, abolishing the Privy Council or the treatment of a would-be political refugee.

This is, in effect, a Government by and for its own leaders, superimposed on an intelligence apparatus that operates as a reserved domain, both steeled in the resolve that they are always right and the masses, to coin a phrase, are asses.

Democracies are placed at risk by political elites that choose not to consult, much less obey, the will of the electorate (since the job of a politician is to be a servant of the constituency, even if attempting an educator role).

The issue is arrogance and impunity in the face of foundation values - fairness, accountability, responsiveness and transparency when entrusted with the public will. What is emerging in New Zealand is an attitude of impunity and silence when confronting dissenting views.

Helen Clark and her entourage disparage those who wonder about the secrecy with which the Government operates. Be it in its attitude about hostile places in which New Zealanders are deployed, or about the Prime Minister's travels, or about the evidence of purported terrorists provided by "friendly" governments with baser instincts, New Zealand is dominated by an increasingly authoritarian-minded political elite protected by a culture of institutional impunity and logic of silence that, except during electoral seasons, is increasingly unresponsive to and unconcerned about, the will of the majority that is the basis of their rule.

It will be their undoing.

There is a difference between the culture of secrecy that surrounds intelligence gathering in democracies and the culture of impunity that dominates that of New Zealand. Western intelligence agencies know that secrets must be kept and sources protected, but that silence on matters of pressing public interest undermines their very reason for being.

They also know that attitudes of impunity in the intelligence businesses when confronted by public demands to know are akin to the emperor's clothes: sooner or later their actions will be exposed because it is impossible to keep all things from all people all of the time.

Revelations that the SIS secretly and illegally video-taped Ahmed Zaoui while he was being interrogated for seven hours without the benefit of a lawyer most likely came from leaks within the security apparatus - leaks occasioned by an insider's unease about the way in which the case is being handled.

In the Government's treatment of Mr Zaoui and the role of the SIS within it, the culture of impunity has been exposed.

The issue is now of three parts: Mr Zaoui's alleged terrorist credentials, the process by which he has been remanded and denied basic civil liberties despite having been declared a bona fide political refugee by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, and the competence of the SIS in evaluating foreign-derived intelligence.

The appeals authority ridiculed the chronology of unclassified information that the SIS supplied in support for the denial of refugee status to Mr Zaoui, calling into question the competence of the SIS. Nothing the SIS has done since has helped alter that view.

Instead, the Government refused to accept the appeal authority's decision and continued Mr Zaoui's incarceration while the SIS security risk certificate issued in March is reviewed.

Since the person doing the review - the Inspector General of the SIS - is not allowed access to all of the classified information the SIS might have, and has shown signs of prejudice in his public comments anyway, the review itself is suspect.

In fact, the Inspector General admits the process is neither fair nor transparent, something that is alarming only to those who believe that the bedrock of democracy happens to be founded on those principles.

By ignoring the appeal authority's decision and fighting Mr Zaoui's lawyers' attempts to have the evidence against him made available even in summary form, the Government has unwittingly helped further to expose the unaccountable nature of SIS operations. Slowly but surely, the emperor is losing his kit.

With a fractured right and an inconsequential left, the Labour Party has to itself national-level politics and the bureaucratic apparatus that goes with. This shows all of the makings of a Latin American-style delegative democracy, where people vote then hope for the best, and where political leaders say one thing to get elected, then do another once in office.

New Zealand is an instance of foundation principles betrayed, and a disenchanted citizenry left to enjoy the benefits of living in an anti-cyclical consumer market (where stronger currencies fall because of instability, insecurity and economic uncertainty, with the local dollar increasing in relative value as a result, leading to cheaper prices for imported non-durables at the expense of the export sector).

Neither economically nor politically can this situation last.

* Paul Buchanan, a former US Defense Department analyst who has written extensively on authoritarianism and democracy, lectures at Auckland University.