Governments away from home
Governments away from home sometimes forget what their people want as soon as they get on the plane. Yesterday the Danish government voted in favour of restarting commercial whaling, tipping the IWC over towards this new stance. Not only is this a conservation disaster, whale numbers have only just started to recover from the near extinction they faced 20 years ago, but it’s part of a continuing trend of governments voting how they like, when they like, not for what their people want.
In a recent survey only 5% of the Danish public supported a resumption of commercial whaling, and yet their government voted for it anyway. Similarly, any move to get local content quotas for the next generation of NZ digital TV will most probably be blocked by WTO agreements signed up to by National in the 90’s. Not that anyone was watching . After all, who reads the small print of international trade agreements? In the same vein, in April New Zealand came out as the only member of the convention on biological diversity in favour of GE technology, despite the widespread rejection of the technology at home. The list goes on and on.
Just goes to show that as long as the press and the people at home aren’t paying attention, governments at international conventions can safely do whatever their special advisors tell them to, without upsetting all the lobby groups camped out the meeting, or a public who just can’t keep up with what their governments are up to.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Actually, Frog, quite a few of us were watching when the government signed up to dodgy WTO deals, we just couldn’t do anything about it.
But I agree with you main thrust - governments are inherently anti-democratic and should be done away with.
June 20th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Hypothetical scenario: let’s say the vote was on whether or not to sign up to a treaty that required all signatory nations to implement Sharia law (a far-fetched scenario for the time being, I’ll grant you, but give it a few years …).
Now lets say the Government in question knew that, say, 95% of the population supported that treaty - despite the human rights violations that would ensue (oppression of women, non-Muslims, etc.)
Should the representatives sign up, or not? They’ve got a clear mandate (hell, they’d probably be beheaded upon their return, if they didn’t).
In other words … I don’t think mandates are everything. Just because 95% of the population votes for it, doesn’t make it right. Apartheid was wrong - and would be every bit as wrong as if it’d been the majority black population opressing the minority white population.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Mind you, it appears they’re rebuilding Apartheid in South Africa right now. Of course, they’re doing just what the old Apartheid Governments there did - use weasel words to make the laws sound non-oppressive and non-racist.
June 20th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
And there was me thinking the Green Party supported minority rights.
Next you’ll be changing your principle position on Civil Unions…
June 20th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
So do the Greens support bringing back the death penalty? The chances of the public supporting that are fairly high.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Bill, Read the 4 Green principles, and then ask your question again.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
DB
“Apartheid”, literally means “apartness” in Afrikaans. Your example doesn’t look anything like apartness.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
fastbike,
Yes, but it wasn’t solely a system of racial segregation; in fact, it was primarily a system of racial privilege. In particular, look at the Mines and Work Act of 1956.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:10 am
Obviously it’s a reasonable for a political party such as the Greens to take a position that the majority disagrees with - they are not purporting to represent the people of a country. A government is a different matter.
Problem is that when you throw out democracy as a basis for decisions, as Duncan seems to be doing, you are left with the thorny problem of deciding who decides what is ‘right’. Oddly, the two examples he uses (sharia law and apartheid) are examples of a group claiming that something is ‘right’ and that ‘rightness’ supersedes the democratic will of the people.
In practice, the Labour Party seems to be of much the same mind, considering its mix of technocracy, elite opinion and liberal philosophy to give it answers preferable to the opinion of the great unwashed. This is all very fuzzy and not particularly clearly worked out. At the bottom of it all is a class-based dismissal of ordinary people and a large degree of opportunism. The latter based on an assumption that global capitalism is the only game in town, and accepting the very large limitations that this puts on democratic decision making.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:19 am
Sam,
Is it your position that ‘rightness’ depends upon the democratic will of the people? I mean, if the majority of the people decided racism is okay (as in South Africa now; they’ve voted for racial quotas in certain fields of employment), does that make it right?
This is one of the reasons to have a Constitution: to clearly enumerate the powers of Government, thereby putting human rights beyond the democratic process. If, e.g. freedom of expression is a right, then it’s wrong for people to be able to vote to abrogate it.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:52 am
Nope, I don’t think democracy makes something right, just that I’d rather depend on democratic will than the the decisions of an elite minority. Who decides what goes in a constitution?
June 21st, 2006 at 3:38 pm
fastbike: yeah, read them. but frog’s post basically explicitly says governments don’t represent what the people want, and that they should.
The most hilarious thing is that if you held a vote in the UN General Assembly tomorrow, whaling would win easily.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Sam Buchanan wrote:
“Obviously it’s a reasonable for a political party such as the Greens to take a position that the majority disagrees with - they are not purporting to represent the people of a country. A government is a different matter.”
… and
“Problem is that when you throw out democracy as a basis for decisions, as Duncan seems to be doing, you are left with the thorny problem of deciding who decides what is ‘right’ … and that ‘rightness’ supersedes the democratic will of the people.”
All very true!
Much of this is WHY Rod Donald et al took time out from politics to look at potential voting systems for Aotearoa/NZ … and in a referendum Kiwis chose MMP (adopted by post WWW2 Germany “to ensure that another Hitler could not happen again”.
Potentially we now have an excellent and potentially very democratic system but, in my opinion, the two major Parties (and, it seems, a lot of voters) still seem to be wearing “L Plates” in learning how best to use it.
A true MMP Government is a more messy and difficult but rewarding process. Individual opinions need to be based on knowledge of the facts of the “big picture”. This takes education and access to the (real) facts.
Also, we should consider that any Government of a small country (no matter how elected) feels the need to fit in with bigger “friends” … (Maybe we should think about choosing our “friends” differently?)
It is easier for the Greens at this stage as we can be purists and work for “what we believe” (which is decided by the (fully informed) Party membership … preferably by concensus decision making) without having to be “expedient”.
AND Sam writes:
“… the Labour Party … mix of technocracy, elite opinion and liberal philosophy … answers preferable to the opinion of the great unwashed …. … all very fuzzy … a class-based dismissal of ordinary people … opportunism … based on an assumption that global capitalism is the only game in town, and accepting the very large limitations that this puts on democratic decision making >>> ”
Welcome to the current World ! Democracy is messy and no one group pleases everyone. However, let’s remember that while in power, there are idealistic and hard working members of the current Government making some good decisions for this country and the people … most of what they are doing would have been part of their pre-election manifesto decided on by their Party and avaliable to voters.
Democracy is messy and no one group pleases everyone.
Footnote:
Minor Parties in the USA (their Green Party for example) have no chance of getting anywhere in Federal politics. For the sake of the Planet and its inhabitants I believe that the citizens of the USA must seek change in their voting system … to a more democratic and therefore “messy” one (… somewhat like ours!?)
eredwen
June 21st, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Dunca Bayne wrote: :
“This is one of the reasons to have a Constitution: to clearly enumerate the powers of Government, thereby putting human rights beyond the democratic process. If, e.g. freedom of expression is a right, then it’s wrong for people to be able to vote to abrogate it.”
According to a Constitutional Law expert that I heard interviewed on National Radio, Aotearoa NZ does in fact have a “Constitution” in the body of our laws etc … This constitution therefore updates itself gradually as society changes. It is both conservative and current, and in the opinion that I heard, thus is preferable to the alternatives offered by other countries like the USA.
eredwen
June 21st, 2006 at 6:27 pm
and once again we’ve hijacked the topic from the species to society…
June 21st, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Good point naturevision !
I for one apologise to all cetacians for following the anthropocentric flow right away from the problem!
However, as it is the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of members of our species that threaten the individual lives, and ultimately collective survival of whales, we must discuss and understand current human society and “how to make changes” in relation to this problem here.
Personally I have a serious problem with the fact that money (originally a symbol / simple tool which made the exchange of goods and services less immediate and therefore more convenient ) for many, has assumed an importance above life itself: both cetacian and human included.
That is what we have to understand and deal with here … on an international scale, and this requires a hard look at ourselves as a species.
eredwen
June 21st, 2006 at 8:33 pm
An addition to my previous post:
… all in relation to the resumption of whaling of course!
June 21st, 2006 at 9:14 pm
As a former whaling nation, it becomes us ill to forget that whales were harvested here for their oil as well as their flesh.
Eating whales is a red-herring, I’m more concerned that as an energy source of the past, whales will once more be put into trypots so that another energy source can be harvested. Whale oil was used as a lubricant, as a lihting fuel, and burned for hest when all else failed.
Entertaining little book called “The Perano whalers”, which details the Perano family who were some of the Sounds and Island Bay’s finest here in the Cook Strait region, well worth a scan at the library (sorry out of wellingtoners, might be in short supply)
I had long consigned that information to history, thinking it was archaic and somewhat sad as an example of local industry; I’m worried that we may see new incursions into our waters by the “business partners” of Ngai Tahu and Sealord fisheries.
Tohora nui, tohora roa, tohora momona - ka karanga ana to whanau.
My heart cries out to the deep oceans, who will save these great mammals if we do not endeavor to save them ourselves?
June 21st, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Good points Katie!
I hope your worries are wrong.
As a South Islander, I have rather more faith in the Kai Tahu Iwi’s potential influence over such a decision …
Must ask a few questions!
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:27 am
Katie,
AFAIK, it takes more energy with modern whaling techniques to kill & collect whales than one could extract from them. I don’t think you need worry about whaling for oil again.
Unless of course someone discovers other properties of the oil (e.g. medicinal) that are not easily obtained anywhere else. But as far as oil for energy goes, whales just aren’t efficient enough.
Eredwen,
Money is much more than a convenient tool to delay exchange of value; it’s the very concept that’s made division of labour practical, by virtue of the fact that it abstracts value away from commodites.
Have a read of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, if you’re interested. And Liberalism, by Ludwig von Mises.
W.r.t. not having a written Constitution in the form of a document - doesn’t it bother you that the Government’s powers are not explicitly enumerated, they can effectively do anything they want if they have an electoral majority? As Clark put it, the Government’s role in NZ is whatever it defines it to be. Doesn’t that bother you, just a little bit?
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
that it abstracts value away from commodites — other than those upon which the currency is based, obviously.
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:41 am
DB
My comment was about money’s ORIGINS, not its current use and status.
… and NO, the Government’s role in NZ, without a “written constitution” (of the American variety I assume you are thinking of?) “doesn’t bother me even a little bit”. We do in fact have a “written constitution”, as I explained. Also, we are a very small country with an aware population many of whom will let their MPs know if they don’t like what is happening, and their MPs will listen.
Might I comment that the “American Constitution” doesn’t seem to be doing much to stop the excesses of the current Administration in the USA? Wherever I read I get the message that Americans “feel powerless” to change things.
On the whole I don’t think Kiwis feel “powerless” in that way.
I know more than ten of the current members of Parliament (from different Parties) personally, and could easily make contact through mutual aquaintances with at least that many others (including the leaders of four parties in the House.)
That is the way that Aotearoa/NZ is.
eredwen
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:12 pm
OT, can frog explain the breakdown in trasparent and honest dealings within the parliamentry caucus? Noone expects the MPs to vote unanimously all the time but yestedays shenanigins did a lot of damage to the caucus’ credibility and reputation for straight dealing.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Speaking of the Peranos, check this out… talk about an about turn in history/culture!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3706688a7693,00.html
Of course i’m aware that the IWC debate is by its very nature anthropomorphic, but the topic was well steered toward general philosophies and preferences of govt models…
and just as an aside, the wave of apathy that has plagued our country with respect to our native flora and fauna is quite frankly a bit “rich” considering our second biggest industry is tourism, and the major drawcard is the “clean green” image, yet sea lion by sea lion, dolphin by dolphin, olearia hectorii by pittosporum patulum, our species are in peril.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:38 pm
OT with Jeeves, I wonder when the opportunity to discuss the doggie matter will appear in the lillypond…
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:26 pm
When censorship ceases.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:28 am
DB just gave me an idea. An amendment that restricts whaling ships to be sailing ships and no harpoon guns.
I keep wondering at the Japanese. How did this become a point of honour for them?
ciao
BJ
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:46 am
phil u - passed.
BJ, I keep wondering why we are not putting a heap more pressure on the good folks in Norway. Seems that singling out Japan is perhaps a tad counter active. If NZ could get a couple of the other real whaling nations to change their stance I think this would make an incredible difference.
Frog - dogs…wtf?
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:47 am
ok…cd someone tell me why frogblog has become so irrelevant..?
what used to be a forum for debate has descended to a heavily censored pr. puff-piece…that studiously avoids any ‘contentious’ issues..and thus earns the charges of irrelevancy…
the evidence..?
no meaningful debate on the issues surrounding the party leadership…
an ignoring (justified in that case..eh..?) of normans’ first outing as a leader…(remember ..?..that jingoistic/xenophobic call to “keep the furriners out”..redolent of peters at his most toxic…)
a studious ignoring of the medical maijuana issue…(a bit embarrassing for all eh..?…the pulling of that bill from the parliamentary lotto..?.esp after norman..in one of his first burbles..tried to hose down that whole issue….)
and now…nothing about the dog-chipping exercise….
wtf is (not) going on…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:42 am
“I keep wondering at the Japanese. How did this become a point of honour for them?”
BJ - if you have the time/patience to trawl, there’s a post from Toichi in Japan a couple of months back on another Whaling thread that covers the background. Can’t remember the details now.
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
phil u
Welcome back! You have been missed.
The debate on fogblog is only as “relevant” as contributors make it.
Each contributor is part of the equation, and recently we have had a higher proportion of visiting “demonstrably not Greens” whose tone and content comes from elsewhere, and has changed the dynamics somewhat.
The Party Leadership and issues involved were discussed “meaningfully” WITHIN the Party in a variety of forums, voted on accordingly within each electorate and then at the AGM. (Greens are a seriously democratic lot with systems that work well.) While my personal preference was not first choice, I am VERY comfortable with the resultant Co-Leader.
Russell Norman will do a very good job. He will however “fill his own shoes”, not those of Rod Donald. Jeanette Fitzsimons, “the other half of the equation”, remains Number One on the Party List. The Green Party moves on … into the future.
The “dog chipping exercise” and the Green vote in the House was well explained by Jeanette Fitzsimons, interviewed on National Radio “Nine to Noon”. If other media (and frogblog visitors) ignore the true situation and treat their speculation and that of others as “fact” for their own purposes, it will take longer for “the truth to come out”. (”What’s new in the Human Zoo?” as the apt saying goes.)
Having said all that … we seem to have a new frog in the lilypond, who ovviously has duties elsewhere as well. Perhaps the collective “we” should ask him/her what we each can do to help make this the “frogblog of our (collective) dreams!
eredwen
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:36 pm
phil u:
rereading your post:
The Green website: http://www.greens.org.nz is a “companion reading” site for stuff related to frogblog. I check what’s new there before linking through into frogblog.
A quick browse reveals some of the stuff you say is “embarrasingly not covered” … like medical marijuana and dog chipping and …
e
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Phil and DR, there is no censorship on frogblog. Only spam or very rude comments are deleted (unless there has been a mistake). Occassionally messages may go into the moderation queue though and publishing will be delayed.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:08 pm
BJ, you may want to take a look at this comment in a recent thread. The FT editorial succinctly sums up what I have been ranting about for several months. so much so, it makes me wonder if the FT writer hasn’t been reading frogblog
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:10 pm
frogmaster..thank you for your reply…
the ‘censorship’ i speak of is not providing a forum here for those issues by the expedient measure of just not doing ’stories’ on those issues…
eredwen..thank you for the salutation…but (ahem) ..i’m afraid i don’t share your confidence in the internal democratic processes/practices of the greens….
to my mind..it screams for reform…
there was clear manipulation of the system in the recent outings…the use of ‘proxy’ votes being particularly suss…in more than one electorate…
there were no uncertainties for the norman camp…they knew they had it well and truely stitched up well before that sham of an election….
then there was the control of the meetings…in ak and wellington esp….this is a traditional tool used by those i have concerns about…the stifling of any meaningful debate..
and this ‘tweaking’ of the system is nothing new….we only have to ‘look back in anger’ at nelson….eh..?
(then there was the appointment of the party development officer..thus giving said officer the forum and means to travel to and speak to/campaign all over the country…)
none of this was accidental…eh..?..and if anyone thinks it was..i have a bridge i’d like to sell them…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 24th, 2006 at 12:33 am
phil u …
(First: Apologies to the cetaceans, whose future we are supposed to be discussing on this thread! Once again we show our anthrocentricity which is very much a part of THEIR problem.)
Second: Now back to the Greens … Perhaps I see the world through somewhat rose coloured spectacles, living sheltered in (formerly Rod’s) Banks Peninsula electorate and Aoraki province.
I noticed different attitudes of a (very) few at the AGMs I have attended, although my impression overall was “very Green”!
As the Party gets bigger and more successful it will attract some people with different ambitions and mores. Thus I would support your call for a rethink and “futureproofing” of the systems.
This should, more properly, be discussed in the “members only” section of the green website …
eredwen
June 24th, 2006 at 12:38 am
i’ll leave it to you then eredwen…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 24th, 2006 at 1:29 am
No don’t do that phil !
June 25th, 2006 at 2:48 am
I’m waiting to see what the Government does about the problems with New Zealand’s unsustainable ecotourism practices.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2006/SCREPNEW-GP D.pdf
“The Committee agrees that there appears to be a significant impact from whalewatching and vessel traffic on this critically small bottlenose dolphin population. It recommends that the Government of New Zealand increases protection for this population and other bottlenose dolphin populations in Fiordland as a matter of urgency.”
Ironic it is then that New Zealand continues to oppose the sustainable use of cetacean resources in other parts of the world where species have been more wisely managed.
June 25th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Actually looked and saw that Russia as well as Norway and Iceland want the cetacean’s blood.
If the whaling nations had their way there’d be no more whales within a decade. At which point we could do what to them?
Not a blessed thing.
So the question of it being “just Japan” we should be targeting is a very good one. There were a lot of countries that voted with the butchers…. and Japan has a lot to answer for in the long run if the species go to the wall.
respectfully
BJ
June 25th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
BJ
Off the top of my head, without checking …
In these current times, Norway and Iceland would be wanting to retain a right to historical small scale indigenous whaling. Their vibrant democracies, given the attitudes of their people, would be most unlikely to allow anything more than that.
Norway was out there in the bigger, international waters, commercial stuff in the more recent past, but times and attitudes have changed a lot since then.
June 25th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
and Japan is doing “Scientific” whaling… quite a different kettle of fish, considering none of the science has been published in peer-reviewed Scientific journals, and all of the meat ends up on the blackmarket…
June 26th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Other countries may be responsible for whaling or wanting it, but Japan does seem to be leading the political charge. Presumably the others are happy to stay out of the limelight on this issue.
One question about Japanese attitudes I have is: does the Japanese population actually care very much either way? Is this something that arouses strong feelings or something that a narrow lobby of business interests is pushing for, but which most people either mildly disapprove of, or mildly favour, but aren’t going to make a fuss about?
Opinion polls can be misleading if the reality is the latter - lot’s of people mught say “yes” or “no” , though they barely give a damn.
June 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Sam:
“Is this something that arouses strong feelings or something that a narrow lobby of business interests is pushing for … ”
Exactly!
and, on a different scale in a different sphere: to see just how much influence “a narrow lobby of business interests” can have when those in the general population “barely give a damn” … witness American oil
interests and Iraq, Afghanistan etc
So what do we DO now?
June 27th, 2006 at 10:08 am
To come back to the start of this thread, I’d guess the Danish government’s decision to ignore its populace and vote in favour of the resumption of whaling had a similar basis to that of the Japanese government - the interests of a small business elite outweighing the interests of the wider community.
In other words, we live in a society divided by class, and this needs to be understood. The word ‘class’ seems unfashionable these days, particularly in Green circles, which is a pity, as it defines present reality.
What do we do about it? Same as ever, struggle for proper democracy.
July 1st, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Sam,
in japan, we’re not talking about a “small business elite” when it comes to whaling. this is small money when seen from the world’s second-biggest economy.
no, what we have is a minute “chauvenistic-nationalist political/buraucratic elite” that is able to portray japan as the victim of western cultural bullying, and use taxpayers’ (my) money to bribe other countries into supporting their crusade.
japan’s conduct of foreign policy (china, russia, n korea, whaling, peru, yasukuni, s korea, star wars…..) from go to whoa is a disaster for the people of japan.
anyone want to argue with that?
July 5th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Thanks for that Tochigi.
It says clearly what I suspected was the situation.
The question is … what can we in Aotearoa/NZ do to help counter it?
eredwen