Four-year governments? Be careful what you wish for
Now that Joe Biden has secured the presidency it is his turn to renew Lincoln’s pledge, made at the height of Civil War, ‘‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth’’.
He will be too busy healing even his portion of it, a fractured United States locked in an uncivil war, to assume responsibility for the rest of us. That’s up to us.
Because government of, by, and for the people is an idea worth protecting. It says that people are the source of political power. They elect a government to run the country. That government then works for the general welfare of the people.
Parliament is sovereign but is composed of the people’s representatives. They dutifully serve the general welfare. They give it their all, that I know. They are also, as we often see, a mirror image of our own imperfect selves.
Which brings me to the Labour-Green Cooperation Agreement and its promise to work with all parties on issues affecting our democracy.
Included are the Electoral Commission’s 2012 recommended changes to MMP: whether to lower the threshold to four percent and abolish the one-seat rule. Electoral finance laws are mentioned in vague fashion, but the kicker is the length of the parliamentary term.
A four-year term has been put to voters twice before and rejected both times. The people have preferred to keep a short leash on their governments. Now it’s back on the agenda.
A Royal Commission analysed term length in 1986. They found that arguments in favour of a four-year term making for more effective government (that is, better policy) could not be ‘‘decisively establish(ed)’’.
The Royal Commission also noted there were ‘‘insufficient restraints’’ on governments to justify awarding them another year in office. The people agreed, with 69.3 per cent rejecting a four-year term in 1990.
Thirty years on, those restraints are still absent.
We have seen some evolutionary change, notably the Public Finance
Act, proportional representation and (until last year) coalition government, but we remain a comparatively simple political organism where power is heavily concentrated in Cabinet and, in reality, a small clique inside it.
I’m against a four-year term because why would we gift our political class another year of power without receiving any added constitutional protections in return? None are on offer in the Cooperation Agreement.
My terms for saying yes are accordingly sky-high: a written constitution. Throw in a republic for aesthetic reasons. Then you can have four years. Readers will have their own threshold, or perhaps none at all, but the choice about extending the parliamentary term is not one I reckon is worth risking buyer’s remorse.
The efficiency argument is no stronger than when the Royal Commission analysed it and, based on my Beehive experience, not having enough time isn’t the problem. Supporters of a four-year term risk getting the opposite of what they wish for – greater political churn, not less; a sort of boomerang effect.
Given our three-year cycle, voters have historically given first term governments the benefit of the doubt, with only two one-term governments since 1935. However, would we be so forgiving of a mediocre government if we had to contemplate eight years of them? Hard to believe so.
Also, there has never been a National Government that has not served three full terms. That’s nine years. No excuses for short-termism there.
The inconvenience of three-yearly elections triggers the incipient insecurity of politicians and that is, frankly, a healthy tension for the people to hold over their elected representatives.
Turning to the electoral threshold and one-seat trigger, a referendum could have happened in 2020. NZ First asked for one to keep the democratic deal from 2012, and that was despite its long-standing preference for maintaining the current threshold. Labour’s agreement, however, was subsequently walked back.
That was a shame because it remains corrosive of ‘‘government by the people’’ that politicians have prevented the Electoral Commission’s recommendations, to put the threshold and one-seat aberration back to the people, for nine years.
Bottom line, however the government chooses to proceed, the people must decide these democratic issues, not the political class that stands to benefit most from them. The government should consult with other parties and then put its thinking before New Zealanders as soon as it is able. The ‘‘team of five million’’ proved in 2020 that it can follow orders. In 2023 it must be allowed to decide if it wishes to issue new ones.
Jon Johansson is a political scientist and was Chief of Staff to Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters in the LabourNew Zealand First Coalition. All views expressed are his own.
Why would we gift our political class another year of power without receiving any added constitutional protections in return?