Webmail: PlaNet www.pl.net
0800 752638
Planet Communications— delivering socially and environmentally conscious internet and media services since 1992.
PlaNet News & Views
|
|
|
Posted on 11-11-08 The Politics Of PlaNet
11 November 2008
Ed: Some of the PlaNet and KC Internet crew have been brave enough to
voice their thoughts in public in response to the 8 November election
result in our fair land. The contributors were, in no particular order,
Roger Genet, Alan Marston and Theo Simeonidis.
MMP has unquestionably heralded in a new era of inbuilt inertia and navel
gazing which has removed a large part of the certainty previously
resulting (with limited exceptions) from the previous first-past-the-post
electoral system. While even Helen Clark was initially opposed to it, she
and her colleagues soon learned how to work the MMP system to best effect.
Whether this might be interpreted by some as a cynical manipulation of
the system or by others as working across party political boundaries to
forge a coalition of consensus on important policy matters is by the by.
The fact is, that given their toys to play with, politicians will indeed
make the most of them.
The business and political environments have always been intertwined and
it is interesting to note the changes that this NZ and the very recent USA
election have thrown up results which reflect the changing emphases and
cultures already taking place within many boardrooms and management teams
around the world as a consequence of the horrific corporate scandals of
the last 8-10 years or so (eg Enron and others) and the evolving concept
of what constitutes quality leadership.
We know that whilst Wall Street and Featherston Street traditionally
placed great premiums on the "Gordon Gecko" style of abrasive,
in-your-face, and rule-by-the-sword style of leadership - if one can call
it that - the corporate excesses have changed all that. Businesses are
less inclined now to look for emotionally unintelligent business
hatchet-men (or women) are owners now recognise that that is a high-risk
approach to business and is hardly a basis for building enduring and
mutually respectful business relationships. Even our own Sir Robert
Jones, repeatedly mentions how he is totally averse to hiring graduates
with business degrees, preferring those who have a well rounded background
in the humanities and arts. Business is about relationships not about
formulas.
Now lets translate this into recent political trends. President George W
Bush faced a terrible situation on 9/11, to which he responded (as many
at the time would have expected) with the analogy of the Gordon Gecko
style of leadership. Clearly there were many complexities and issues
which perhaps made it impossible to act in any other way. But now, nearly
8 years later, large numbers of the USA electorate have increasingly
questioned whether these policies and the associated style of leadership
were still appropriate for the future. Was the invasion of Iraq a logical,
ethical and appropriate action to take? The election result clearly
demonstrated what they thought: they believed there is a new leadership
paradigm, a new way forward. And
perhaps most importantly, leadership needed to be underpinned by a strong
sense of values, ethics and morals. Obama was seen to have these.
So it turned out in the New Zealand election. It would appear that Helen
Clark had a high level of personal support as Prime Minister for many
years. Furthermore, New Zealanders like "strong" leaders - whatever that
means. However, in the last term, elements of George Orwell's Animal Farm
started to appear: "All animals are created equal, except some animals
are more equal than others." This famous saying encapsulates and
describes the last year or two of the Labour government. The Labour
Government became so obsessed with either retaining power, or poisoning
the chalice so as to compromise the policy room that any incoming
government would have within which to work, that it resorted to desparate
tactics to entrench its position and undermine its opponents. The
nationalisation of NZ Rail in a manner that clearly made no business sense
was totally political. The huge amounts of money it spent on
redistributing taxpayers' money when they could simply have left it in
people's pockets by reducing taxes is a case in point, especially given
the economic boom times through which they have largely governed.
The obsession with retaining power was nowhere more evident than in the
decision by the Labour Party President to fly to Melbourne to deliberately
go digging for non-existent personal dirt on Opposition leader John Key.
Furthermore, in many of these instances Helen Clark's posturing to
solemnly distance herself could not be believed by many people. Listening
to talk-back radio in the last week before the election was amazing: to
hear the sentiments from a wide range of people, including hitherto loyal
Labour Party supporters, suggested how strongly these people believed that
via the personal dirt-digging and shrill attacks, this Helen Clark
government had lost the moral authority to govern. It is to John Key's
credit that during the campaign National stayed "on-key" and did not get
tempted to throw back the muck and dirt on their opponents. Clearly this
struck a chord with a large part of the electorate and affirmed, in my
view the thesis of this piece, that both the modern view of the new model
of business leadership and political leadership are now very close:
autocratic leaders who "are more equal than others" no longer fit the bill
in either endeavour.
My thoughts are that the country was sick of Mother Helen (not that she
was doing anything wrong just been there to long) and it would not have
mattered who the leader of the Nat's was (as long as he was presentable)
or what policies they both put forward.
Labours negative campaign left a bitter feeling of: What have Labour got
to offer is fear and more gloom ahead. At least Nat's campaign kept their
heads out of the muck and gave a feeling of going ahead.
As the difference in policy was marginal between the two main parties that
was never a big factor.
Not very often can a PM last more that three terms and this was another
example of the people wanting a new face at the controls.
Also the result of the US election gave the people the idea that change is
good.
Some sage once said politics is the art of the possible so I suppose it
follows that a good politician is the first to see what is possible and
align with that. But there's more to it, for otherwise the silver ghost
Peter Dunn would have been PM long ago.
I think a good politician (not to be confused with a politician who does
good) not only knows what is possible politically but also knows what is
possible personally. As Clint Eastwood's character Dirty Harry said to his
last victim in Magnum Force, `a man's gotta know his limitations', a woman
is no different. By 1996 Helen Clark knew her limitations and what was
possible with MMP. I suspect John Key has had too much success too fast to
know his and what.
So why did Clark fall? Because despite her best efforts over 9 years to
cut loose poor politicians and surround herself with better ones the
poverty of politics was too great and the fear and envy of the press too
keen to exploit misfits. The boat was tipped.
Why did Key rise? Corks always do. But they have little ballast and are
prone to be blown away by even a moderate Southerly. A howling Sou-Wester
is as we preach approaching the Fiordland coast. I wouldn't recommend the
incoming government as a secure mooring.
So what to recommend? For people with a long-term view, the excited
pronouncement of another sage, a Hindu, is worth contemplating `In the age
of Kali even a small good deed earns great merit'. Think small.
|
