Philisophical difference with the current government

[marsden_online]

One of the big problems I have with the current National government is that their prominent members (and how often do we hear from any of the others?) act as though being elected grants them some kind of right to rule New Zealand, and as such entitlement to push through their agendas irregardless of the wishes of the actual population. This particularly shows in their tendency to, when challenged or questioned on their actions and possible consequences, bluster, bully or obfuscate rather than clearly laying out and justifying how they have weighed the pros and cons and come to the decision that this course of action will genuinely be the best for this country in the longer term. They will do as they wish, we from who their authoritay! is supposedly derived will lump it.

Granted
- this attitude isn't restricted to politicians on the right or absent from all those on the left - it's actually on a different axis
- there are times when a good government will need to push through something which may be unpopular in the short term

Whereas I see that being elected grants the duty and responsibility to serve New Zealand as one of society's representatives. It's right there in the name of our system of government; we (supposedly) live a in a "representative democracy". And a representative serves the one(s) who have delegated that authority to them.

Moreover National (and others of course) appear to believe that their representation need only extend as far as those who supported them into government, and maybe even only in proportion to the amount of that support. Whereas to my way of thinking the election is merely how we decide as a country who our representatives are to be, once elected their constituency is everyone in, under our MMP system, either their electorate or some other non-politically-defined group of national or interest. (So portfolio based groups are in; eg education, health, conservation; racial/gender/wealth-based catchments are a maybe; "people who voted for us" is right out.)

This is fundamentally a division of labour - and NZ is a small enough country that even the regional representatives should be able to balance local issues against the long term national benefit.

~~~
As an aside while I am thinking about it - it is very difficult to find an initiative which will significantly benefit the people at the poorer end of society which will not also benefit those at the top insome way. This is in many ways how it should be - as improving the lot of those at the bottom surely benefits society as a whole. This is the case where "a rising tide lifts all boats" my actually hold true.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I remember watching a documentary on neoconservatives during the second George W. Bush election (2004?). I can't recall the details, but it posited that the core tenet of neocon government is that the general populace (in our parlance, the electorate) is Too Dumb to understand What Is Good For Them, and as such necessitates the telling of lies and the pushing through of policies regardless of popularity because It Is Good For You. This National government is, without shadow of a doubt, neocons.

- Gremlyn (el-gremmo.livejournal.com)