Peters’ bark worse than his bite

Not everyone is happy that Winston Peters will once again pick the government. A new satirical song pokes fun at the populist preening himself as the country awaits his decision. More serious critics also deplore the idea that the system gives so much power to one man. And even supporters of MMP must have private doubts. Has it really come to this again? That the prime minister will be appointed by an ageing, erratic and increasingly querulous politician who gained only a tiny share of the votes? Can we really tolerate hearing Mr Seven Per Cent promising to ‘‘change the way this country is run’’?

This is a serious question and it deserves a serious answer.

Let’s admit straight away that this is not an ideal way to pick our rulers. MMP does give serious power to small parties, including one driven by an unreliable politician with a history of racebaiting. There are good reasons why Peters has never gained widespread voter support. Most voters are too sensible to back him.

So MMP has real problems. The best argument in its favour, in fact, is the paradoxical one Winston Churchill used for democracy: the alternatives are worse.

MMP gives power to small parties, but the First Past the Post system which it replaced gave far too much power to large parties. Labour or National mostly became ‘‘elected dictatorships’’ after getting less than half the votes. They could win big parliamentary majorities with only 43 per cent of the electorate (1984); they could scrape into power with only 35 per cent (1993). A large party could even win after gaining fewer votes than the party which ended up in opposition (1978 and 1981).

The gap between the popular support for a party and its parliamentary power, in other words, was enormous under FPP. Under MMP, that isn’t so. Large parties, typically, will need to go into coalition with smaller ones, or gain their support on crucial votes, in order to govern. So the parliamentary majority will reflect a majority of voters.

In the present case, this means Labour or National needs Peters’ support. But doesn’t this give Peters too much power? Not as much power as it might seem.

It certainly doesn’t give Peters the power to make swingeing changes ‘‘to the way this country is run’’.

For if the big parties gave too much power to the small one, both would face terrible trouble at the next election. The small party tail can’t wag the dog without risking oblivion. Small parties know, in fact, that they risk oblivion anyway, simply by getting into bed with bigger ones.

The experience of MMP is that small parties in power tend over time to disappear or become largely irrelevant. This happened with the Alliance, with ACT, with Peter Dunne’s United-Future, and with the Ma¯ ori Party. NZ First itself disappeared from parliament for a term.

So Peters’ bark in opposition has proved less than his bite in power. The swaggering populist turned into a careful foreign minister and a cautious minister of finance. Wise voters will ignore the bluster.