John Roughan: MMP has changed little

It is interesting the way MMP is working out in New Zealand. It is awarding power to the party first past the post. We've had five elections now and it has happened every time.

National and Labour together still command the support of 80 per cent of the voting population and whichever of them wins the larger share, though it is never a majority, is expected to form a government.

Small parties capable of coalescing with either sensed the distaste for the Winston Peters play-off after the first MMP election and decided it was wiser to announce in advance they would favour the one with the most votes.

This is not how MMP was meant to be but I suspect there is a reason it has turned out this way. It is one thing to change an element of constitutional law - quite a big and rare thing - but that doesn't necessarily change the constitutional culture.

The rules of any democracy rest on its people's sense of fair play. Elections must produce a government whose legitimacy can be acknowledged by those who didn't vote for it. How would New Zealanders regard a government that hadn't won the election?

The Herald asked that question in an editorial during the last election campaign and was roundly chastised by Labour supporters. Labour's only prospect of retaining power at that election was in a coalition of parties that finished second, third and fourth.

Its supporters pointed out that this would be perfectly permissible under MMP and that no party "won" elections any more. It accused the editorial of first-past-the-post thinking. Indeed it was; quite a bit of that thinking remains evident in our political behaviour.

We operate in the glorious Westminister tradition of a largely unwritten constitution. Its conventions are not fixed by law, we work them out as we go.

That doesn't mean we make constitutional change lightly. The adoption of proportional representation at referendums in 1992 and 1993 followed a period of unusual political stress.

Both main parties had carried out drastic economic reforms without a popular mandate and broke promises in the process.

By 1993 the economy's recovery from disinflation and unemployment was barely perceptible and a disaffected electorate adopted an electoral system that would make it unlikely a single party could ever again govern alone.

Well, that's what we thought. Next year we have been given a referendum to review that decision - perhaps too lightly.

The questions were announced this week and they sound like fun. First we will be asked whether we want to retain MMP, then, even if we do, we can nominate one of four alternatives to replace it.

If MMP is rejected next year it will have a second chance in a run-off referendum at the 2014 election against the winner of next year's second question. If we vote twice for something different we will get it at the 2017 election.

This is not how constitutional change happens. If there were serious popular discontent with the status quo we would be getting a schedule somewhat quicker than seven years.

The electorate seems fairly satisfied with MMP while it is producing stable governments by the party first past the post and a greater variety of politics for the parliamentary side-shows.

We might never see a clamour for change unless we get a government of also-rans. Theoretically it could happen any time. It could have happened at the last election if Peters had got a few more votes and he, the Greens and the Maori Party had gone with Labour.

Imagine the political climate in the country now if Helen Clark was presiding for another term having attracted 34 per cent of the popular vote against John Key's 45 per cent.

It would be regarded as a coalition of losers. General derision could settle into seething discontent that could destroy a party at the next election and demand a better electoral system.

I could be wrong; we can't be sure unless it happens. Enthusiasts for MMP will point out that Labour twice won marginally more of the popular vote under first-past-the-post and the system left National in power.

It is true that there was no popular uprising against the electoral system after the results of 1978 and 1981, though they helped motivate the royal commission that recommended MMP in 1986.

The system was eventually adopted as a check on governments' power. Fears at the time that tails would wag dogs and governments would be paralysed, haven't eventuated. Consultation has done no harm, minor parties do not push their luck. MMP has changed much less than it promised.

We didn't adopt it lightly and I doubt we will discard it without good reason. We have grafted it on to our political culture and the hybrid deserves to survive.