New Zealand goes to the polls

By S.P.SETH

WELLINGTON (JP): The elections in New Zealand, scheduled for tomorrow, are especially important this time for two reasons. First, they are being held for the first time under the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation voting system adopted in a referendum in November 1993. Till then, elections were held under the first-past-the-post voting system. Which meant that the winner didn't necessarily have to get the majority of votes -- the person or party concerned simply had to gain more votes than its nearest rival. Under this system, New Zealand largely worked as a two-party democracy, with either the National or the Labour party ruling the country. So much so that some of the minority parties would manage to get no more than two seats in parliament even when polling close to 20 percent of the vote at times. The old first-past-the-post voting system, therefore, didn't accurately reflect the popular will.

Under the new MMP system, parliamentary representation will be decided proportionally on the basis of votes cast for each party -- 5 percent being the minimum qualifying vote to gain representation. Each voter will have two votes -- for the party slate and his or her territorial constituency. But it will in effect have only one value because the party vote will solely determine "the number of seats each party wins in the 120-seat Parliament..." The new system will be more democratic, enabling even minority parties to have an effective say in national affairs.

The second reason for the importance of this year's election is that the people will get to deliver a considered verdict (representing all shades of opinion) on New Zealand's radical economic and social pain, with its welfare, health and education sectors drastically slashed. New Zealand has been virtually privatized, with much of its economy now owned by foreign interests. The power of labor unions has been smashed, with individual workers negotiating their contracts directly with employers. The economic trimming thus achieved has made New Zealand for many economic rationalists a model for other `bloated' economies. (The new conservative Australian government, for instance, is only too keen to follow this route).

The statistics do uphold the efficacy of New Zealand's radical economic surgery. The economy has been on a steady growth curve for the last five years. Unemployment, which increased sharply following economic reforms, has come down significantly. New Zealand's foreign debt is almost paid off. Inflation remains under control at about 2 percent a year. The government hopes that, with such economic fundamentals, there is now scope for more spending on health, education and other social sectors.

However, such optimism is not shared by everyone. There is considerable labor unrest, including among white-collar middle class professionals. Even though unemployment is down, most new jobs are part-time. Working conditions are lousy, with no job security. Under-staffing and under-funding of essential services is a serious problem. It is a "dog-eat-dog" society with the rich getting richer and the poor being left behind. Charities are busy looking after those unable to cope. Even their resources are stretched thin -- if not exhausted.

The government of PM Jim Bolger, though, is proud of its record. Not too many people seem to share this pride. Opinion polls have the ruling National Party below 40 percent of popular ratings. With such ratings, the National Party will not be able to come to power on its own under the new MMP voting system. New Zealand looks like entering an uncertain and uneasy era of coalition governments.

There is however, cautions optimism in the country. Nigel Roberts, a political scientist in New Zealand doesn't think "it will be a leap into the dark... because the vast bulk of democracies have proportional representation. It is just the English-speaking world which doesn't..." Stephen Mills, another New Zealand analyst, is hopeful too. He believes that "most people are still hopeful there will be consensus and co-operation (among the parties). They are skeptical about whether that will happen, but I don't sense any groundswell of discontent."

But the fact remains that there is considerable confusion among the people about how the new system will work. According to Jim Bolger: "The 1996 election will be unique. We must not only campaign for support, we must also educate and inform voters on the new MMP system, that they should vote for the same party, both for the party slate and the constituency candidate. There seems little value in convincing voters of our virtues if they don't clearly understand how to vote us in."

One might as well ask: why did New Zealanders opt for the new MMP system of voting with all its apparent confusion? Because, as already pointed out, it more accurately reflects people's democratic verdict. Also, New Zealanders were getting sick and tired of the same two parties taking turns at ruling the country without delivering on their promises. For instance, both parties, when in power, went ahead with radical economic restructuring reneging on their promises not to inflict social and economic pain on the people. Therefore, when given the choice in 1993, people opted for an alternative electoral system to deprive the two established political parties (National and Labor) of their alternating monopoly on political power. At the time, they were obviously not thinking of the political muddle it might create.

It is just as well that New Zealand has mostly completed its economic reforms. Because under the MMP system, it wouldn't have been all that easy. Even though some political parties are now talking of substantially modifying or reversing economic reforms, most of these reforms appear now safely locked in. Though in New Zealand's new and more populist era, they will all be trying to cash in on social misery created by large-scale dislocation and disruption from these reforms.

As David Lange, former Labor prime minister has pointed out: "I think the parameters for the economy are immune to attack (but the politicians are) going to have the feeling that they should be doing something." And that is where the danger lies -- of inflaming populist passions. One such instance is the use of Asian immigration as a bogeyman by Winston Peters, leader of the New Zealand First party.