I have been silent for a long time. There are a number of reasons, one of which is that there have been many distractions requiring time and attention. But one reason for failure to comment stems from the fact that so much has happened on national and political fronts that, frankly, I’ve been left speechless, unable to adequately express my alarm without appearing to be verging on a state of panic. I shall attempt to elucidate.
For nearly four years I’ve been a keen observer of a phenomenon known locally as Jacindamania. I feel confident in stating that less than a dozen years ago a sizeable chunk of the population felt the same way as John Key took hold of the parliamentary wing of the National Party and began his three terms as charismatic leader and shaper of the nation’s fortunes and direction. He had the Christchurch earthquakes to help raise his profile and he also had his much-debated flag change proposal with which to deal. There is no doubt in my mind that he held sway as a politician with an instinct centered on popularity and re-election.
Key’s legacy is one of stable government with a distinct sway towards centrist politics. In fact, he brought the country closer in philosophy to the sentiments of socialism than any other leader I can remember. Under his leadership there were changes in legislation that angered the right wing elements of his party and he failed to deliver on promises he made upon election, notably reform of the RMA. His saving grace, from the viewpoint of his party adherents, was that he held the line on fiscal policy and that is largely down to the experience of a seasoned team backing him up.
Going back a little further, we have the record of our first elected female prime minister who oversaw nine years of huge social change. Helen Clark was driven by an agenda some commentators were bold enough to label communist. While that is not a popular term to use in connection with New Zealand leaders, many who experienced communism in their own countries have now spoken out that the hallmarks Marxist philosophy were all there. Of particular concern at present is that we are again hearing the term in connection with current leadership and from another group of people who believe they are qualified to express an opinion.
Totalitarianism is a description we most commonly associate with dictatorships from the annals of history but what does the term actually mean? My thesaurus tells me it has to do with absolutism, tyranny and authoritarianism. So how does Jacinda’s record stack up against these descriptions? Absolutism, in the political sense, has to do with ideologies and dogma and there can be few bold enough to disagree that we are seeing a wide display of political dogma in the way our country is being managed at present. Andrea Vance, a seasoned reporter and part time political commentator, recently wrote a piece outlining how the present government’s stated aim to be the most open and transparent government is nothing short of a sham, and a disgraceful one at that. She has documented the sharp increase in PR consultants employed by ministers and government departments with many doubling in recent times. The record has to go to the New Zealand Transport Agency which now employs 72 staff to keep its message on track, up from 26 five years ago. PR experts or information managers in the political arena are little more than smoke and mirrors artists and Andrea’s article is full of examples of how this government is keeping serious investigative journalists away from the truth. For you own research check out: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/125352433/this-government-promised-to-be-open-and-transparent-but-it-is-an-artfullycrafted-mirage
Tyranny is a hard one to quantify. There will always be claims of such things which have no likeness to reality and a common example could be an incompetent employee claiming bullying while being performance managed. Perception and reality are easily interwoven in such cases. However, cruel use of power is one subset of meaning and there are those who will be quick to point the finger on this level. I am not one of them because the same could be argued about a previous administration that put profit before people. I am prepared to argue oppressive effect because there is legislation proposed and already enacted that is clearly oppressive and I risk repetition in bringing up again the subject of inconsistency, but it is appropriate at this point. On the one hand a lot of noise is made about saving the lives of those, particularly, young people who take their own lives – and rightly so – but during the tenure of this government legislation has been enacted that allows for the killing of babies right up to the point of birth. Additionally, the allowance of “mercy killing” for older people is being actively canvassed. I cannot reconcile these facts apart from believing in an oppressive and uncaring society.
The rise and rise of green politics is little short of oppressive and the outpouring of public anger a week ago when farmers took to the streets was a small showing of how much the productive sector is hurting. Consistently primary producers are pointing to a mounting wave of oppressive legislation and regulation that is making it increasingly difficult – some say impossible – for them to carry out their business. I was amazed when I learned prior to the general election last year that some farmers were preparing to give their party vote to Labour so there would not be any need to include the Green Party in government and to some extent I have to think “you got what you asked for”. I realise what they were aiming to do but it made no sense to me. A footnote to the farmers’ protest came about in an overheard conversation among left wing voters. When asked what they thought of the farmers their reply was, “Just a bunch of rednecks”.
But what brought me to the keyboard was an interview with our toothy leader on her birthday yesterday. From the outset it was clear something had changed and she was no longer the smiley, consultative PR person intent on making it sound good. Her approach was one of grim business like answer-at-all-costs and it became clear she was not in the mood for allowing the interviewer any room to probe the subject he had prepared. As interviewers do, he tried to shorten her answers by assuring her we all know what she is saying but there is more he wants to know and with dogged determination and steely look she talked over top of him until she had finished each part of her prepared rhetoric. I was surprised to witness such a change from the previous persona we are used to seeing and it was obvious she was in no mood to allow someone to take the interview in a direction she was not prepared to tolerate.
Muldoon was the epitome of authoritarian leadership and I heard many stories of his style from my sister who worked as a press secretary in parliament at the time. Yesterday’s interview set me in mind of some of his attempts to control and dominate the media but it is the huge PR machine running the information train feeding the masses that is the major difference. We have announcements that announcements will be made and by the time the announcement is actually delivered the populace is conditioned to think something good is happening. At lunchtime today it was made public by the opposition that the government’s claims of social housing stock recently built by them was exaggerated but that press release will get swamped in more announcements of impending announcements. We now have government by announcement. Health, education, housing, policing and corrections services – not to mention child/youth/family – all are struggling with lack of definitive action. Mike King, youth suicide prevention advocate, claims that of the millions of dollars announced by this government almost nothing has made it to the delivery stage. Government is bogged down with announcements and nothing is actually happening.
So what are the realistic chances of a change? Almost zero in my estimation. There is no credible opposition – and please don’t start whimpering about how good Winnie was at holding the last government to account. If it wasn’t for him the majority who voted for National four years ago would have had a different government. National is in a state of non-participation, largely because the seasoned members with the institutional knowledge have deserted parliament. And why? Not because they are doing so poorly in the polls, but rather because the party requires overhaul from the top down. A leader sets the tone and the National Party president has clearly set a tone that makes real politicians want to run and hide. Selection is clearly an issue and the growing list of younger members self-destructing very publicly is evidence of this. And that’s the pessimistic outlook from my perspective.
So what’s all this got to do with emperors and new clothes? My greatest hope is that one day the voters of New Zealand will see this government for what it really is and realise nothing is getting done, debt is mounting, productive sectors are being regulated out of existence and the social fabric has changed to a point I barely recognise prevailing attitudes. And the realistic chances of that happening? While a whole generation has been brainwashed about Maori sovereignty, climate change, the worship of trees and rivers and the need to outlaw farming, there doesn’t seem like a lot of hope. I guess we just have to keep believing for a miracle.