There are three basic ingredients to a successful democracy. Successful in the sense that they have enhanced the freedoms and basic living conditions of all people across the board:

A couple examples of the first point can be found in New Zealand’s history of political innovation. We were among the first in the world to give women the vote. This immediately increased the vote franchise by upwards of 50%. Or to put it another way – male dominated sovereignty or rule was cut by around half overnight. It means the direction and powers invested in the State became so much less focused on the few and spread to a much wider voter base.

While a socialist might argue today, that giving back the vote to prisoners achieves a similar result, there are good reasons why this isn’t a good example of what we are aiming at. Social norms at present, arguably – would counter this move as unacceptable – because the idea of punitive action by the removal of certain rights against convicted felons is part of societal expectations with regard to their debt to society.

Another example of New Zealand innovation to increase “?????? ??????? (??????????? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????????), in our political history is when Maori were given race based representation in Parliament through the creation of Maori seats.

Of course judging by today’s standards, this is racist to the core and ought to have been rescinded when the Royal Commission of Enquiry Into Electoral Reform recommended this at the time when MMP came into being through their findings.

Nevertheless, when the history of this decision is investigated, one can understand that this was a good compromise ?? ??? ???? and under the strictures of a UK influenced political system which was discriminatory against the poor who owned no land. We had inherited the class system that was built into the Westminster style of government which dictated that the vote was restricted to landowners. Which very much was an impediment to Maori and effectively excluded them from the vote because of the complicated tribal system of land ownership.

So the Maori seats were a way to circumvent the discrimination of citizens who were essentially landless without compromising the laws around the necessity of land ownership which were endemic at the time.

When land ownership ceased to be a requirement for the vote, is when the Maori seats should have been abolished. But because of political expediency, no government has had the political will to do so. And probably never will until Maori themselves widely recognize the inherent discrimination in this reality.

Ideally I want to represent a party where the focus of power lies equally within the membership and is not focused in the board.

The Board therefore take on roles as executives of the Membership. When we get that right internally, we hopefully can take it to the nation. A truer form of democracy. I always thought it was a double standard to promote Citizens Initiated Binding Referenda to the nation, when we didn’t promote or practice that principle within the party structure.

The only alternative that I see – is more of the same politics that New Zealand has suffered from, and endured for years – no matter what stripe they were, and are common to all of the parties that are currently in parliament. Are we content to have what American philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist Naom Chomsky described as “?????? ?????????”?

????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ????.

For too long citizens and taxpayers of New Zealand have suffered under a system which has in many cases been mandated by governments who – after wooing us into the polling booths on their behalf – then took the reins of power and largely ignored the will of the people who gave and mandated the power to rule. This criticism is easily justified, exemplified by the results of public referendums that were repeatedly ignored by the ruling party of whatever stripe.

The nature of what we mean by “democracy” is the issue in question here.

???? ? ????????? ???? ????????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????, ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? (?? ???? ???????) ???????

Chomsky postulated that whereas this term was euphemistically applied by Americans to forms of governance in places “???? ?? ???’? ????, ???? ????” where – quote “??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????” – his contention is- that this is also indicative of American politics where ?????????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ????????? ????? ?????? ?? ????????? ??????? ?? ???? ???????, ?????????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????????.

If it’s agreed that democracy literally means “?????? ?????”, and as conservatives, liberal and moderate progressives alike, I sincerely hope that to be the case, wouldn’t the New Zealand public and the governing boards of the various parties see a huge advantage to being perceived as more purely democratic? Consider the parallels above – that we all have witnessed within NZ’s democratic system – and recognize, in Chomsky’s definition of Guided Democracy what is evident throughout NZ’s political system.

If nothing else, Labour has done what Sir Geoffery Palmer accused Muldoon of doing (but in my view to a far greater degree) over 40 years ago, and which was his inspiration for writing the book “????????? ?????” where he outlines his case for a single constitution by which to outline the rules that any NZ government must abide by. In his forward he wrote:

“?????? ????? ???? ????????????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??????????? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ??????. ?? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????????. ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ??????????. ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ??? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ???????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??????????? ??? ???? ??? ?????????????? ??????.”

Substitute the word “???????” for “??????” and it’s easy to recognize that after 40 years nothing much has changed – except for the worse.

And again, ??? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????,, which has continued to cost this country dearly.

“??????? ??? ????????? ?? ????????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????????? ??? ??? ???????????. ?? ??????? ??????????? ??? ?????????, ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???????????, ??????????? ??? ???? ???????, ???????? ?? ??????????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????????, ??? ???????? ?? ??????????? ????? ???? ????? ??????”

“??? ?????????? ?? ????????? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ??? ?????? ????”

“????????? ?? ? ?????????? ?????????? ???? ??? ????? ??????????? ?? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????????????, ?????????????? ??? ??????????????” Professor Alex Tan (Ted Talk)

Let’s at least ask ourselves the question: Do we want to continue the legacy of a “?????? ?????????” as described above? And if not, what better place to start practicing a purer form of democracy than to present a case, to demand within our respective ranks, changes within the various constitutions of parties that claim a respect for and wish to honour democracy?

Democracy in New Zealand will receive a huge boost when even one party will adopt a more open, transparent and less hierarchical, less autocratic form of internal governance that must start and be evident within the internal workings of the party at a grassroots level, and which is reflected in their constitution and ultimately worked out at a national level.

Surely, the general feeling of powerlessness experienced by voters, the evident apathy towards the ruling of this country might experience a revival of interest when the perception of a more direct democracy is encouraged.

Speaking from personal experience in a political party, as long as the attitudes, and the various constitutions representing the operating parameters of the various parties allow the focus and concentration of powers, such as which allowed the removal of a party leader from office without consultation with the broader membership of the party, we will be fundamentally no different from any other system of so-called “Guided Democracy”.

Whether determined by cultural Marxists in the far Left of the Labour caucus, by religious clerics of Iran, or the corporate interests of big business in America or a board of governance who refuse to put aside the difficulties – real or imagined – of working with a popular leader and his attendant supporters for the sake of the greater good, ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???????, ?? ?? ??? ???? ? ???? ?????????.

If we, the people, desire and demand a foundational change in the way our democracy in NZ operates, then it is no less important that we demand the same within our own respective parties.

The time for unilaterally made decisions is over, the debate over decisions which affect the public, needs to be widened to include those who are at the coal-face and who suffer the direct consequences, as well as occasionally enjoying the benefits, of those who make the decisions affecting the direction of this country.