Editorial: Donald's death leaves us poorer

Few in this country, whatever their political views, will not feel the shock of the sudden loss of Rod Donald. He had become an important part of the range and balance of our political life. The Green Party might sit out on one flank of the political spectrum but in Mr Donald it had a personable and forceful advocate who could hold his own in any company. And he could do so making minimal compromises with the conventions of Parliament and public life.

His often-dishevelled appearance was probably both a blessing and a curse to the party. It reassured supporters that his attitudes and principles were unchanged by election to Parliament, but for many others that same message in his appearance made him the scary face of the Greens.

The irony was that the clothing and grooming belied his real nature. He was the more compromising and pragmatic of the Greens' leaders. Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons is equally forceful in policy and debate but more firmly set on what she thinks should be done. He was the more willing to settle for what could be done. After the recent election Mr Donald seemed the most disappointed of the Greens at Labour's refusal to bring them into a coalition.

He made no secret of his belief that Helen Clark could have "called the bluff" of United Future and New Zealand First, who refused to support Labour if Greens were given executive roles. After three terms in Parliament, two of them watching Labour in power, any left-leaning MP would be anxious to do something in what is likely to be the Government's final term. It rankled deeply with the Greens' co-leaders that the Prime Minister not only allowed Peter Dunne and Winston Peters to "blackball" them, she gave both their rivals ministerial posts.

Still, it is unlikely that Mr Donald died disillusioned. He was eternally cheerful and optimistic. He came to Parliament having already achieved much in the campaign for electoral reform. It might be too much to say proportional representation would not have happened without his agitation for it, but he was certainly a persuasive voice.

Though an advocate for proportional politics he, as much as any political tactician, was finding its practice a challenge. At the 2002 election his party miscalculated badly in trying to bind Labour on genetic engineering. The electorate gave Helen Clark alternative supporters and she preferred them. This time the Greens tried an undemanding approach but fell one seat short of the number the left needed to compose a majority.

At age 48 Rod Donald had much more to look forward to doing in Parliament and beyond. Immediately, he had Labour's backing for an effort to promote New Zealand products on the domestic market. Further on, he could expect the Greens to prosper from the probable dimming of Labour's fortunes during this term.

But now the Greens' prospects must be re-assessed. Mr Donald will not be easily replaced, particularly as his successor must be male under the Greens' quaint rules. Co-leadership exists to contrive gender equality, but even in the Greens it might not have been envisaged that it was men who would need the help. The Greens should now do away with tandem leadership. Ms Fitzsimons is quite able to stand out front on her own.

The Greens will miss Mr Donald more in the back-rooms where strategy is made. He had a keen sense of what was afoot in other parties and, unlike some of his colleagues, he did not suffer a single-issue obsession. The country will miss him too, for his intelligence, idiosyncrasies, commitments and good nature. Without him our politics is a little poorer.