Friday 5 December 2014

Government By (Some) Of The People.

Unanimity Not Required: Democracy, properly defined, is that system of government which allows those issues which perennially divide a people to be resolved by the will of (at best) a majority, or (at worst) a simple plurality of the responsible adult population.
 
“GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, by the people, for the people”. Abraham Lincoln’s supremely succinct definition of democracy has been repeated so often it has become a political cliché. And yet, even as he spoke it, at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on the afternoon of Thursday, 19 November 1863, his formulation was political humbug.
 
The American “people”, in whose name the battlefield at Gettysburg was being consecrated, was then engaged in a titanic civil war over what it meant to be an American. The democratic system of government enshrined in the US Constitution had grappled with this question for 87 years and it had failed. The “people” had been unable to agree, and so now the future of the American Republic was being decided by blood and iron.
 
Most nations are only held together by sentiment. A unifying national mythology; a common language and history; familiar and beloved institutions; the reflected glory of an all-conquering sports team: these are the things that bind a people together.
 
But there are many forces that tear a people apart. Class prejudice; religious bigotry; the inequitable distribution of wealth and resources; racism; overbearing courts and tribunals; brutal law enforcement; exactly who should, and who shouldn’t, be defined as the “peoples’” friends and enemies. Nations have gone to war with themselves over such matters.
 
Democracy, properly defined, is that system of government which allows those issues which perennially divide a people to be resolved by the will of (at best) a majority, or (at worst) a simple plurality of the responsible adult population. Obviously, the stronger the sentimental glue which binds a people together, the more willing those who find themselves in the minority will be to abide by the decisions of the majority. Equally obvious, however, is the need for democratic governments to honour the minority’s forbearance. No democracy can survive an elected government’s attempt to transform its transitory political dominance into a system of permanent rule. The composition of the majority must be permitted to change – or democracy has no meaning.
 
These musings upon the nature of democracy are inspired by a week of quite alarming revelations. New Zealanders have learned that, at the highest levels of their government,  there is evidence of an abiding scorn for the traditions and institutions that make for a cohesive society and functioning democracy.
 
The Report of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security into the release of SIS information to Cameron Slater; Justice Chisholm’s Report into the conduct of the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins; the introduction, under urgency, of the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill; taken together, all of these developments suggest a potentially dangerous loosening of the struts and ties that prevent our democracy from flying apart.
 
The impression conveyed is of a political class that sets little, if any, stock by the whole notion of democratic restraint. In some very high places, the idea that the minority’s forbearance should be honoured, or that linking the minority’s interests with the majority’s remains a crucial objective of democratic government, elicits only derisive guffaws. In its place has arisen an attitude towards the Government’s opponents which borders on the sociopathic. They are no longer regarded as fellow citizens with rights and opinions to be respected, but as enemies who must be destroyed.
 
That such short-sighted conduct leads only to destruction, both morally and practically, should be obvious to the meanest political intelligence. One need not be a biblical scholar to grasp the meaning of the verse: “For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” The democratic politician understands that he, his party, and all those his party represents, will not be in power forever; and that it is, therefore, prudent to use only those political tactics that one’s own side could tolerate being used against itself.
 
But what if this tradition of democratic self-limitation were abandoned? What if a politician and/or a political party, refusing to accept that what comes around goes around, adopted a morally reckless, winning-is-everything strategy? Wouldn’t that mean that, very soon, political defeat entailed such monumental personal and institutional risk that it had to be prevented at any cost – including democracy itself?
 

Abraham Lincoln: His Gettysburg Address offered Americans "a new birth of freedom".
 
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was not, in the end, about defining democracy, but about redefining the purpose of the United States in a way that gave the conflict’s appalling losses meaning and prevented another civil war from breaking out. It was about giving Americans a sense of citizenship so vast and inspiring it could dissolve the lure of self-interest and drown out the rancour of partisanship. A “new birth of freedom” is what Lincoln promised the American people – North and South.
 
Perhaps it is time that we New Zealanders “highly resolve” that our own nation should have the same.
 
This essay was originally published in The Press of Tuesday, 2 November 2014.

25 comments:

Nick said...

It is somewhat disturbing that I am reminded of the Muldoon years by this article. Despite what I saw as his tyrannical approach Muldoon was by comparison to todays politicians extremely respectful of the spirit (and organs)of democracy. By comparison I only see contempt for this spirit in Key and the rest of the rabble he "leads". For example did Collins not get that as Minister of Justice she had to be seen to be purer than Caesars wife? Who though really cared?

Most concerning is this lack of discourse as our citizens placidly accept that political power grows from the bank vault, not the gun barrel. Bought up and paid for, body and soul our spirit no longer transfers to our institutions. RIP the spirit (and practice) of NZ democracy.

Victor said...

Excellent article, Chris

I suspect you won't agree with me but one of the many morals I draw from this piece is the need for a written constitution.

As the US example amply demonstrates, it won't cure every abuse. But it would provide a firmer benchmark than we have at present.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

The written constitution would be okay, but we need to think very carefully about what goes into it – that's a no-brainer – but also about how to change it when it becomes out of date. The prime example of this would be the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, given when the arms were muzzle loading muskets.

Jamie said...

The second amendment is a bar against tyranny G.S.

Imagine if when the Nazi's came for the Jews, or the Gypsies they all had guns ready for the Gestapo...

Would of made putting them in camps a lot harder no???

Jamie said...

Muzzle loading muskets just ain't gonna cut it in this day and age afraid to say...

Victor said...

GS

Of course there needs to be a method of amending a constitution. Just so long as it involves something more than a simple parliamentary majority, otherwise there's no point having it.

Another important point is to avoid deifying the constitution as the US has done, thus making any proposal for change the equivalent of licence to corrupt the morals of your grandmother.

Jamie

Just how many guns do you think the Jews and Roma would have required to avoid the holocaust?

Jamie said...

"Of course there needs to be a method of amending a constitution. Just so long as it involves something more than a simple parliamentary majority, otherwise there's no point having it." Victor

Agreed. The wolves don't get to vote to eat the sheep!!!

And the bludgers don't get to vote to tax to death the productive!!!

"Just how many guns do you think the Jews and Roma would have required to avoid the holocaust?" Victor

Not many in my opinion, maybe one per household would of been enough...

And the will-power and training in how to use them effectively...

Gesatpo-types are cowards (that's why they were in the gestapo and not in the armed forces) and would of been too scared to come through the door if they knew they were gonna get shot!!!

Could say the same about crims too...

Guerilla Surgeon said...

The Second Amendment is pure bullshit Jamie sorry. As a defence against tyranny it's a purist crap. Considering tyrants have no great problem expending lives in order to get what they want, and considering armies have far more and better weapons than your average man in the street – even in the U.S. And I think it's a bit much to blanket condemn the Gestapo as cowards – though we might condemn them for other things. We don't actually know the state of their courage. And the Gestapo probably wasn't always used anyway, except as organisers. They destroyed the Warsaw ghetto without them, and rounded up most of the French Jews without them also. Sorry Jamie too many generalisations and assumptions :-).

Jamie said...

"blah blah blah" GS

Jamie said...

"Blah blah blah" Guerilla Surgeon

Then goes on to...

Stick up for the goons in the gesapo.

{Shakes his head}

You're a know-all-stooge

Davo Stevens said...

The US Constitution Second Amendment states: that citizens have the right to bear arms in fully organised militia. Not the right to carry a loaded sub-machinegun around a Mall!

It's purpose was to protect the settlers from a wayward Govt. and unruly natives. Not to wander around looking and acting like "Rambo"!

We have a sort-of Constitution here called the "Bill of Rights". Like any Parliamentary Leglislation it can be modified at any time.

Jamie said...

Oh look Davo 'the champion of paedos rights' Stevens came crawling back...

Did you get round to asking your crim mates what they think should be done with paedos???

http://r1016132.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/give-em-to-the-gangstas/

Moving on...

Where did I say people should be able to roll round the mall with a sub-machinegun???

Or go wandering around tooled up like Rambo???

Can you say straw-man...

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias"

***Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Don't waste my time boi

Victor said...

Davo

"We have a sort-of Constitution here called the "Bill of Rights". Like any Parliamentary Legislation it can be modified at any time."

The point about our Bill of Rights is that it is not entrenched. No more effort is required to change it than is required to change any other legislative provision, however trivial.

To the best of my knowledge we are one of only two developed nations without entrenched legislation around our civil rights, the other being the UK.

I would submit to you that neither nation is amongst the best governed at this moment, that neither has a particularly good recent record with respect to the liberties of the subject and that the lack of entrenched rights may be a factor in this.

Jamie

You are just a "troll" and not really worthy of a response.

But I would ask you to reflect on the relative sizes of the Jewish and Roma communities in pre-war Europe, as compared to those of other ethnicities, many of which were deeply antagonistic to both Jews and Roma and, in many places, not unsympathetic to the Nazis.

In your fact free universe, something like the second amendment to the US Constitution might have placed arms in the hands of Jews and Roma but would also presumably have placed them into the hands of their far more numerous enemies. And so the Holocaust would merely have taken a slightly different shape but would have been just as terrible.

I should perhaps point out that I lost many family members in the Holocaust (including some who probably knew how to strip down a Sten Gun) and rather resent your utilisation of their fate to argue for utter nonsense.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

A know it all eh Jamie. On the other hand you seem proud of your lack of knowledge and commitment to bullshit websites. Perhaps you should try doing a bit more growing up before you contribute much more to this site.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Fuck me and you've got the nerve to criticise somebody for making a strawman argument I notice. And yet you claim that I'm sticking up for the Gestapo. In fact all I was saying was you made one of your bullshit blanket statements that means absolutely nothing. Proving that you know nothing about the Gestapo for a start. Apart from what you might read on Wikipedia may be but even that I doubt. Let's put it this way child, if you make one of those blanket statements like the Gestapo were all cowards, all I have to do is find one who wasn't and you are wrong. Guarantee I could easily do that. Fuck you know nothing.

Davo Stevens said...

Ahoi Victor, yep your're right we and the UK are the only two without a "cast in stone" constitution. The 'Bill of Rights Act' was supposed to fill that gap. It has been of questionable value in doing so.

Davo Stevens said...

@Jamie. Surgeon put it succinctly but I will add: Go back to your playpen and leave the discussions here for we adults.

For your bloody information I have a copy of the original US Constitution here in front of me right now and what I wrote before is precisely what it says.

Lay off the ad hominems they do your argument no favours.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Victor, Constitution or not, I think personally that we are better governed than the U.S. The Constitution is great in theory but doesn't actually protect people a great deal in practice. Although I must say the free speech thing probably works better than most. But it seems to me each party concentrates on those aspects of the Constitution that best suited and ignores the rest. The right for instance loves the Second Amendment, but is less keen on the first. I do think a written constitution might make us better governed than the U.S., but only because we are better governed in the first place. If that makes sense.

Jamie said...

Not calling you a liar Davo but I'm struggling to find which original US Constitution you are referring to???

Could you please send through a link because all I can find is the one reported by Mr Samuel Adams...

"Earlier proposals and drafts of the Amendment[edit]
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms"

***Source***

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Guerilla Surgeon said...

The Supreme Court has also decided that even though you have the right to keep arms, the state has the right to regulate this. I'm not quite sure how that works out in practice, but it seems to work in principle :-).

Davo Stevens said...

Contact the Smithsonian Jamie. They will send you a certified copy of the original document as it was drawn up by the US Congress. It will cost you, no idea how much now, I got mine a few years ago.

Try to make meaningful comments and no ad hominems and people will listen to what you have to say. Make the comments in your own words not endless copy and pasting links to rightwing sites.

I am a Vietnam Vet who was getting bombed, blasted, shot at and covered in poisonous chemicals before you were born mate. So don't ever forget that.

Victor said...

GS

I don't disagree with you.

It's possibly a matter of taking the basic approach that New Zealand has to government and reinforcing it with a few entrenched( but ultimately changeable rules)that encapsulate our best practice.

I also think that discussions about constitutions shouldn't necessarily be based on what the Americans do. There are lots of other countries that have one and don't get into the sort of mess that the US seems to be in.

But, of course, this whole discussion begs certain huge questions ( e.g. the status of the Treaty, the monarchy etc), which would need to be firmly defined and tied down in any constitutional settlement. So I'm not holding my breath.

Jamie said...

"I am a Vietnam Vet who was getting bombed, blasted, shot at and covered in poisonous chemicals before you were born mate. So don't ever forget that" Davo

Jamie laughs...

You do know impersonating a Combat Vietnam Veteran is a pretty serious offence. Rank, service number, unit, deployment dates, where did you serve, medals ect...

"For your bloody information I have a copy of the original US Constitution here in front of me right now and what I wrote before is precisely what it says" Davo

Well nut up or shut up and take a photo of it and post it!!!

I'm still waiting for a single link...

I'm not holding my breath...

Jamie said...

Oh yeah

I'm still waiting for you to ask your crim mates what they think should be done with paedos...

"I still do some work with PARS as a volunteer. I do budgeting and literacy advice for crims who have been canned up for some years. Our main focus is to get the crims back into society and to stop re-offending where we can"
Davo

http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/phillip-smithtraynor-triumph-of-expert.html

Not holding my breath on that either...

Chris Trotter said...

Jamie, at Bowalley Road we take people at their word.

You say you're an ex-soldier and we believe you.

Demanding Davo supply his military details comes very close to calling him a liar.

I can't help thinking that a real soldier would have a much firmer grasp of the concepts of honourable and dishonourable conduct.