There is no retraction that New Zealand politics are in limbo with no certainty as to who will form the next government.
The country remains as undecided as it was on election night of September 23 when it emerged that the National with a record-breaking performance of 58 seats was as far removed from power as the Labor-Greens bloc was with 52 seats in their kitty.
The only good news is that the nation could know by October 12 – the date of the return of the writs for the election, marking the delivery of the final results to the Governor General. And the date Winston Peters pledged to decide who to support to form the next government.
However, the less good news is that Winston Peters will only have four days after another October 7 deadline when the Election Commission draws up the total special vote count for this election.
With the number of negotiations expected on so many highly contested policies between different political parties, if the discussion is supposed to be policy-based and not other issues like personal compatibilities, the four-day deadline might not be a window. big enough to pull a rabbit out of the hat (read a government).
Nonetheless, there is not much that can be done to change this and New Zealand politics will continue to remain in limbo for at least a week, before perhaps remaining in limbo for his entire term until his term. in 2020.
There is good news for the general public when Winston Peters met with national leader Bill English and Labor leader Jacinda Ardern on Thursday 5 October, at least to set the rules for the negotiation when it finally begins after 7 October.
It is likely that precious time has been gained here before entering into real talks on the formation of the government.
Mr Peters made some interesting comments to the media after these initial talks with the leaders of the two main parties in order to deflect the intense attention and thus the intense expectations of acceptable behavior in a multiparty democracy.
One of Mr. Peters’ most intense expectations is not to wag the dog’s tail. That is, a party with only 7 percent of the vote should not be so demanding and control the future of New Zealand politics.
And Mr Peters has resolutely tried to change that narrative by repeatedly speaking about the difference between a mixed member proportional (MMP) system and a first past the post system.
“You can’t win with the public, you can’t win with the media, you can’t win with the commentary, you can’t win with people who think it’s all about the first-party system even though we are in an MMP environment, and they operate day in and day out, ”said Peters.
Basically what Mr. Peters is arguing here is that the perception that the big parties should get a bigger share of government is a farce, and is wrongly inherited from the pre-1996 era, when the New Zealand was under a one-round majority system. system.
It can be argued that the first past the post system is unfavorable to small parties, and indeed, the MMP system is designed to accommodate more diverse and alternative ideas in governance.
This has been adequately reflected on numerous occasions since 1996, when many small parties had had their (non) proportionate say in the government of the day.
However, the MMP system was never designed to give diverse opinions or viewpoints the predominance over majority opinion on governance matters, as Mr Peters has tried to spread so vehemently in recent days.
In Mr Peter’s worldview, in an MMP system, political parties should have negotiated among themselves months before the elections and, in essence, guaranteed small parties (read NZ First) a role in government after the elections. elections, even though voters may not be giving them enough. figures in parliament.
This is clearly an attack on the choice of the voters which is supreme in an electoral democracy, regardless of the MMP system or a first past the post system to manage democracy.
An MMP system is only designed to take into account minority views and ideas in governance and not in any way prevent the right of major political parties to have a say in the formation of government.
It is high time that the subtle narrative Mr Peters is trying to weave around the MMP system and the First Past the Post system to justify the excessive power he currently wields in New Zealand politics was dispelled and discredited.
Whether it is the MMP system or the first past the post system; the big parties should have a say in the formation of government and governance.
This article is free to read, but it would be great if we had your support.
