KEY POINTS:
Is Winston Peters the OJ Simpson of New Zealand politics?
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that before I take this analogy any further, I should state clearly and for the record that, similarities and spooky coincidences notwithstanding, there's one glaring difference between the two.
Indeed - Winston was a handy sort of footballer but he simply wasn't in OJ's league. Back in the early 70s when Peters was a busy midfield back for University and Auckland Maori, Simpson became the first NFL player to rush 2000 yards in a season and won an NFL player of the year award.
It's probably also worth noting that Peters has been accused of many things but murder isn't one of them.
Having got that out of the way, let's consider what they do have in common. They're both alpha males in their early 60s who have polarised opinion throughout their tumultuous careers. Both have bounced back from reversals that would have finished off less resilient men. Neither seems over-burdened by a sense of shame.
And both have the hounds baying at their heels yet again. While Peters fights for his political life, Simpson is back in court in Las Vegas on 12 charges, including felony kidnapping and armed robbery.
Many people think Simpson literally got away with murder, arguing that the jury - eight of whom were Afro-American - were swayed by his ethnicity and fame.
There was more than a hint of that mindset in Maori Affairs Minister Parekura Horomia's lobbying ahead of the censure vote. Horomia warned Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples there would be "repercussions" from Maori if the party supported the motion, explaining that "we were supporting Peters because he was an elder statesman".
I doubt Peters himself would agree with the first part of that proposition. As for the second part, well, if Peters is a statesman, I'm William Shakespeare.
On the face of it, it seems that, as in the Simpson case, those whose verdicts really count - Helen Clark and Michael Cullen - chose to ignore some pretty damning evidence.
Clark's claim that there was a "conflict" in the evidence presented to the privileges committee was, strictly speaking, correct insofar as Peters and his lawyer insisted that the blindingly obvious conclusion wasn't the correct one. When the Prime Minister decided the matter wasn't "satisfactorily resolved", she set the bar so high there's little chance of her ever being satisfied. Yes, there are two sides to every story but to accord them equal weight irrespective of the evidence puts you on the slippery slope to moral equivalence
I suspect when Peters casts around for historical or contemporary figures worthy of comparison with himself, he zeroes in on his namesake. Churchill does tend to be the role model of choice "for all those driven men, unhinged by ambition, who are convinced they're different from (read: superior to) the rest of us, and for the greater good should be given their head rather than being hamstrung by pygmies, like Gulliver in Lilliput".
(I'm quoting from my last novel. A bit presumptuous I know, but I figure why reinvent this particular little-used wheel?)
Like Peters, Churchill had some difficulty deciding which political party most closely reflected his beliefs and philosophy or offered the better prospect of rapid advancement. He became a Conservative MP in 1900 but was effectively deselected by his constituency for opposing party policy. He crossed the floor to join the Liberals in 1904 and later became an independent. In 1924 he rejoined the Conservatives, saying with disarming frankness, "Anyone can rat but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat."
Churchill also rather gloried in being a maverick and standing in splendid isolation on the big issues. During the 1930s his stances on India, free trade, the power of the press barons, the abdication crisis and rearmament led him into the wilderness. But in his darkest hour, when the establishment had deserted him and political oblivion beckoned, there was one key figure on his side: Adolf Hitler. The rest is history.
Finally, one can only wonder what Labour supporters, Amnesty International and the citizens of that godforsaken country made of Peters' claim that his treatment by the privileges committee had "echoes of Zimbabwe". For more than 20 years those who dare to oppose Robert Mugabe have been subjected to a relentless campaign of harassment, intimidation and brutality, up to and including murder.
While he poses as an outsider, Peters is in fact the ultimate insider, snaring plum jobs - Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs - and the baubles of office, regardless of which major party is in power.
