Trigger-happy on ‘dirty politics’ claim

In asking ourselves what constitutes dirty politics, no need for hypotheticals. Real-world case studies abound. In the United States, Republican efforts, underway right now, to stop votes being counted in undecided Senate and Governor elections by spreading conspiracy theories alleging fraud where none exists? Dirty. Donald Trump spreading a video in the last weeks of the midterms campaign deemed so racist and factually inaccurate even Fox News wouldn’t run it? Yep. Secret Russian money funnelled illegally to fund the UK Brexit campaign? For sure.

Back at home, the leaking of private text messages between a scandal-plagued MP and his jilted paramour? Definitely. Me defacing National Party signs all over Auckland Central in 1993? Absolutely. And sorry about that.

Illicit leaks, lies, graft or plain old vandalism. These gutter tactics are outside the bounds of what any democratic society should tolerate.

But I’m noticing the phrase ‘‘dirty politics’’ is bandied about in New Zealand in troubling ways.

Last week, it was revealed that Porirua Mayor Mike Tana has yet to move his family home from Rotorua despite promising to do so before his election. The report also mentioned a poll conducted in the city which raised the mayor’s residency as an issue.

Within 24 hours, Tana played the dirty politics card, casting himself as a victim of a smear campaign. Among his Twitter fans, there was, predictably enough, much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Councillors quoted in the story faced a barrage of abuse on social media platforms – one even had private and highly personal chat room conversations leaked by a Tana ally. Wellington political commentator Morgan Godfrey called the criticisms of Tana ‘‘a disgrace’’.

Colour me baffled. What exactly is disgraceful, or even a little bit murky, about any of this?

A mayoral candidate who promises to move his family home into the city he seeks to lead, and then doesn’t, should expect to be called on it.

Tana cited family reasons to explain why he hasn’t moved – and the media gave ample space to his rebuttal, as it should.

If there’s something illicit about pointing out that Tana continues to move between the city and his family home in Rotorua – or a potential challenger poll-testing voter sentiment on the issue – then we’ve really allowed the definition of ‘‘dirty politics’ to stretch into absurdity.

Shouldn’t Porirua voters at least know the facts so they can reach their own conclusions? Isn’t this especially true given Tana’s election commitment?

Like Tana, I promised to move addresses if elected in 1989 to the Porirua City Council. I moved from Camborne to Ascot Park within weeks of winning on the assumption that failure to do so would carry a heavy price. And that was four, not 400, kilometres up the road.

We must not allow ‘‘dirty politics’’ to become a shield against democratic accountability. In a country largely free of the kind of dastardly tactics that infect politics elsewhere, it doesn’t serve us well if we allow an excess of gentility, or an undue fear of the ensuing backlash, to shut down debate.

Politics is, and should be, a contact sport. We ought to be able to robustly question the actions of elected politicians, and we do democracy a disservice by deeming every tackle too high.

Before setting off the dirty politics hair-trigger, let’s first ask: is the tactic or criticism illegal (Kremlin funds Brexit), false or misleading (the Trump ad), and does it fall outside the public interest (like the Jami-Lee Ross text)? In the Tana case, it goes nowhere near ticking any such box.

Causing embarrassment to politicians by holding them to election promises isn’t dirty politics. It’s our civic duty.