There is a lot to like about the New Conservative Party’s policy platforms and as a social conservative, I would love to see them as part of a coalition government in the future.
There is one big fly in the ointment for me and that is the fact that just like the old conservative party, they have built their political identity around the policy platform of citizen-initiated binding referendums.
Supporters of this idea seem to think they will mean a more democratic New Zealand but they couldn’t be more wrong.
Here is an analogy to help explain what I mean:
Fifty people found themselves trapped on an island and realised very quickly that if they were to survive they would need to be organised to make sure that the most was made of the individual talents of each person.
The first thing they did while sitting around the campfire was to elect a leader, as democracy was very important if they were to ensure that everyone stayed civilised and no one reverted back to the rules of the jungle where only the strong survive.
The leader then chose 5 others to whom he would delegate responsibility for key tasks such as building shelter and gathering food. Each of those 5 individuals put together a team of people and soon a fully functioning village had been created complete with basic laws.
It was then that the trouble began. One of the villagers who decided that he didn’t like the food demanded MORE democracy. He wanted there to be a vote taken to decide the daily menu. More democracy sounded really good so a vote was taken even though 20 of the villagers were unable to take part as they were away for a week on a fishing trip.
The result of the vote was that ten voted for a vegetarian menu, eleven voted for wild pig and the remaining ten villagers voted for frogs, shellfish, fish or coconut curry. This lead to a lot of ill-feeling especially from those assigned to pig hunting as it was a dangerous and exhausting task. Others were angry as the vote was only narrowly won and they were unable to take part in this “extra” democracy as they were away fishing. Those who enjoyed a variety of food were upset that they would now be forced to eat pork every day. The Muslim family in the village was furious and moved out of the village altogether refusing to be a part of this “extra” democracy, leaving the community for good.
At this point, the pig hunters went on strike and the leader was called on to solve the problem. He stood up and addressed the village.
“You all wanted democracy” he said “and you chose me as your leader. I chose 5 people to run 5 teams to provide a civilised and well-run village for you all to live in. My key people and I wrote the laws for this village and until you demanded ‘more democracy’ everything was running smoothly.”
“You had your democracy when you voted me in. You can vote me out at our next election if you are not happy with how I am running things. That is your democracy. What you call ‘more democracy’ is in fact voters usurping my role as a leader and wanting to make decisions by committee. If you want to run things that way and decide on every single key decision then you have no need for a leader or his team. There is no point electing a leader because you are taking away my ability to keep my promises and lead in the way I had told you I would.”
“Many of you elected me because I promised a varied menu and my team has ensured that you have had many different foods to enjoy each week. Your committee has just voted in a pork only menu. Please explain to me how that equals more democracy?”
“I was voted in by everyone in this village but your vote only involved 30 of the 50 citizens of this village. Again, please explain to me how that equals more democracy?”
One important flaw in New Conservative’s key platform of citizens’ binding referedums is that they appear not to have considered what happens when the result of the referendum is the complete opposite of all that the majority party in power stands for.
Let’s imagine for a second that the New Conservative party one day replaced National as one of the two main political parties and that they formed a coalition with the Act Party. The Act Party then calls for a binding referendum to legalise euthanasia which goes against everything that the New Conservative Party stands for.
The sanctity of human life is very important to their supporters who voted them into power, but because they think that political policies should be decided by committee and not the political parties voted into power to make these kinds of decisions, they allow it to go ahead.
Forty percent of the New Zealand public bothered to take part in the referendum and they vote to bring in euthanasia. We now have a situation where a party that believes in the sanctity of human life and which was voted into power on the basis of those beliefs, is now forced to pass euthanasia laws and fund euthanasia!
Citizens’ binding referendums do not add more democracy, they undermine actual democracy. There is no point voting for a political party if they are forced to let the public act as a committee to decide key policy directions. If we are going to effectively make decisions by committee then there is no need for a Prime Minister or a cabinet.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.