New Zealanders are increasingly distrustful of politicians.
And the figures emphatically show it.
Just five months ago in May, researcher Dr Stephanie Worboys of the Maxim Institute researched the public’s ”trust deficit” of Parliament.
Dr Worboys said “A Parliamentary survey published in 2023 found that public engagement with Parliament had “hit a new low” of 13%. The survey also found that only 36% believed that Parliament dealt with issues of importance to them. Additionally, only 43% believed that the views of everyday New Zealanders were represented in Parliament.”
Not surprisingly the survey seemed to go unnoticed, or ignored, by mainstream media.
Other figures verified the strong trend. The parliamentary survey showed just 36 percent (one in three) of New Zealanders are strongly committed to voting. Or to put it another way, 64 percent couldn’t care less. They are afflicted with apathy.
Apathy has always been a problem. Last century, Albert Einstein said “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”
But before that in ancient Greek BC times philosopher Plato rued “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
To cite another quote, “Apathy’s a problem but who cares?”
We should, it’s the erosion of democracy.
One person does care deeply – Amy Brooke of Nelson who is a regular contributor to the UK/Australian “Spectator” magazine – https://www.spectator.com.au/author/amy-brooke/ to the Australian “Quadrant” and to the Australian “News Weekly” as well as well as interviews with Rodney Hide on Reality Check Radio – https://realitycheck.radio/replay/amy-brooke-authoress-nzs-liberal-policies-errant-church-leaders-christianity-history-favourite-novels-and-more/
While her first love is writing for children (she is the author of highly successful children’s books) another book “The 100 Days Claiming Back New Zealand” published over a decade ago, deals with “what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.”
Her blueprint for remedying the defining democracy and the subsequent apathy afflicting New Zealand’s political system, is based on Switzerland’s government, a strong form of democracy adopted over 170 years ago – tried and proven.
Amy Brooke – Swiss government model, tried and proven
Reclaim Democracy
“Nothing can possibly rescue New Zealand from the on-going process of poor decision-making by our political parties, unless New Zealanders themselves take matters in hand,” she says.
“If we are to reclaim a genuine democracy, there is a very simple and highly achievable way way to do this – the 100 Days as practised in Switzerland,” she says.
How does the highly successful Swiss democracy work?
Switzerland’s a direct democracy and alongside the usual voting rights accorded in democracies, the Swiss people can also stop politicians passing laws with which they disagree.
Switzerland’s democracy was set up in 1848 when the country voted overwhelmingly on a new constitution.
“It is so simple, as so many great ideas are,” says Amy Brooke. A fundamental core is the insistence that all acts of parliament are subject to a Facultative Referendum.
“What this means is that parliamentary decisions become law in Switzerland only when a set period of 100 days has passed. However, within those 100 days, if 50,000 citizens demand that the ratification of proposed legislation be put to the whole country, because of concerns, a vote by the people then has to take place by way of a referendum,” she explains.
In essence, if a majority of those 50,000 vote against that new law, the people’s decision has to be respected by the government. The law proposal doesn’t get enacted. In essence, the people make the final decision.
“The provision of 100 days scrutiny by the public – of all legislation passed by parliament – is the key to preserving a genuine democracy where the people of the country make the final decisions,” explains Amy Brooke.
Negative Voting
So why replace New Zealand’s current system with the Swiss model?
Amy Brooke doesn’t mince her words and concern. The New Zealand public has strongly trended to negative voting at elections.
“The reality is we have lost being a true democracy. In actual fact, our democratic freedoms now extend only to throwing out one political party or coalition when it’s seen as having done so much damage that it should be removed, to exchange it for another – which nobody now really believes is going to be any better.”
New Zealand is no longer a representative democracy. She gives as example when in 2009 the anti-family, anti-smacking legislation was enforced.
“It was instigated by a reputedly Marxist Green MP, Sue Bradford, supported by a heavily socialist and domineering Prime Minister Helen Clark and scandalously endorsed by National Party leader John Key telling his party members to do as they were told. Not one of the major parties so-called constituent MPs stood up to be counted and represent the public, when polls showed 85% of New Zealanders were opposed to this ominous and intrusive legislation.”
Amy Brooke exhorts New Zealanders to claim back their country.“Yes it can be done. And it’s not difficult for New Zealanders to say they’ve had enough, that they claim the right to make decisions that affect them.”
The Swiss claimed that right over 170 years ago. They have proved it works and it does so simply,” she adds.
Undemocratic
Amy Brooke says the public are well aware that political parties cannot be trusted, as reflected in the low faith the public has in politicians.
Would the Swiss system mean the end of political parties?
“No. It would be unreasonable if individuals were not entitled to come together and on the basis of shared principles, form associations,” she says.
She cautions about likening the 100 Days Facultative Referendum initiative to a Citizens Initiated Referenda.
“They are not the same thing. The latter is where a proposal arises and individuals lend their signature to it, to establish or to object to a particular law only. However, The 100 Days Facultative Referendum enables the people to stop in its tracks any legislation it sees as damaging.”
Under the 100 Days Facultative Referendum, the decision of the majority of public, is binding on government.
There are other aspects of the Swiss model that should appeal to the disenchanted New Zealand public. For example, the Swiss president (equivalent of our Prime Minister) is drawn from a Federal Council and the presidency rotates. After one year, he or she has to step down and the position usually then goes to the previous year’s Finance Minister – who then steps down in turn.
“Such a provision here would have stopped a Jacinda Ardern in her tracks. Or indeed an over-bearing Christopher Luxon, backing the discredited CO2 alarmist hoax- which is costing the country so much.”
People, not Politicians, in charge
The most successful democracy in the world, where the government respectfully refers to the electorate, i.e. voting public, as sovereign is Switzerland.
The fact that not the Swiss government, but the people of the country itself actually make the decisions, has brought this about.
However there will be resistance from current parties in New Zealand’s parliament warns Amy Brooke.
The greatest opposition will come from current politicians who are happy with the status quo that sees them only accountable for their actions at the triennial General Elections.
“There is a far, far better way and it’s that adopted by Switzerland,” she says. “The public there are rightfully in control.”
In fact, Switzerland is the only democracy in the world where the people, not the parliamentarians, decide on its directions!
“We could be doing the same. What we need is a tipping point of New Zealanders to support the 100 Days proposal, to eventually force parliament to adopt this, as the Swiss themselves did.”
See www.100daysco.nz
Footnote: “100 Days Claiming Back NZ” is available from <www.amy brooke.co.nz>
The Swiss 100 days model is so logical – and simple – why not?
But since all the current parties have vested interests in maintaining the status quo perhaps it needs a new political party campaigning largely on the issue?
The basic terms of democratic governance are diminishing under our very feet, and who knows what the future holds?
Recent governments since the 4th Labour government and “Rogernomics” have disregarded democracy. Didn’t “Rogernomics” in the sale of public assets without the owners’ (people) permission, show a neglect of democracy?
“Rogernomics” was forty years ago and between elections, politicians have become more disrespectful of democracy and the people, who after all, elected them to serve the public interest.
There just has to a much better way and Amy Brooke has identified one model.
But I warrant there’ will be strong resistance to ditching the current system, especially MMP.
Statistics in 2023 from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the Swiss are very satisfied with their country’s political efficiency and their democracy, while the population of neighbouring Italy feels the complete opposite about their government.
Perhaps Italy parallels New Zealand?
I think that the current political system is working well for and serving the vested interests of the minority of people that are actively involved and influential in the National and Labour parties.
These “oligarchs” have managed to keep dissenters and disrupters out of their way by introducing MMP so that they start multiple new little parties that are not a threat.
People that join the 2 main parties do not get informed of how to attend local meetings of influential members in their electorates but can beco0me more actively involved if they make the effort.
Most citizens are spectators of the game of politics who do not understand it and mistakenly believe that voting gives then influence.
If voting really made any difference, the masses would not be allowed to do it.
Elections are mainly about offering promises and bribes to solicit votes for political celebrities that have been chosen and supported by the party “deciders” to further their own agendas. MMP enables the elite members and funders of the successful political parties to appoint MP’s that no-one was allowed to vote for.
The National Party is the party of, by and for people that consider themselves to be “upper class”.
The Labour Party is of, by and for Modern Marxists that consider themselves to be woke social justice warriors who should take what productive working people have earned and give it to the “victims” of injustice.
There is no political party of, by and for the productive working people that produce the necessary goods and services that are required to have an economy because these people are not politically active or influential in any of the main political parties.
People criticize and complain about the elected politicians and influential bureaucrats but DO NOTHING ABOUT IT because they have been encouraged to be “apolitical” and out of the game.
Democracy is defined as government of, by and for the people but it is only by. of and for the people that are active and influential.
When only a minority participate and have influence, the system of government is called OLIGARCHY and allowing the majority to vote for the representatives of the Oligarchs does not make it Democracy.
The advantage of Oligarchy is that the minority of people who become active and influential in the successful parties gain significant advantages over the rest of the people who do not.
Would you prefer to be an influential player of the game or just a spectator that pays for it?
The List MMP system is ridiculous. As an example, last election in 2023, Labour’s Keiran McAnulty was defeated in the Wairarapa electorate by a solid 2481 vote margin but was back in Parliament as a Labour list MP. There were others like that too.
How unjust is that?
List MPs, yes-men, and yes-women, are answerable to nobody except their party leader.
Accountability used to be the catch-cry but not today.
Wow, that “100 days until being fully implemented” concept is genius, a real safety valve. Good policy for Winston or Seymour to champion. The left would hate and oppose it at every turn. One thought though – it could drastically slow down vital change – given our very short 3 yearly terms for governments, they might not achieve a great deal if lots of their legislation is subject to a referendum, anyone have any ideas how much is?