New Zealand's Recent Referendum

       New Zealand has a slightly strange manner of effecting citizens' views on issues, via referendums. It does have a manner of selecting issues upon which they should have the right to have a vote; and a recent one relates to an interesting matter re: asset sales amidst protests over drilling for oil. More than 10% of the voters ( as required) presented a petition calling for the vote. It seems that most of the efforts behind the vote were encouraged by political parties in a minority, within the parliament.
     This has been within their laws since 1993. Three million voters received the referendum  document in mid  November.   But, apparently, according to the Economist magazine of Dec. 6, the government does not actually have to listen to the voters wishes if it does not want to. And so, apparently, if the turnout happens to be low or for whatever other reason the government my come up with, it is not legally bound by the result - and may, indeed take no heed of it.
       The majority of voters (67%) did say they did not want to see the partial sale of some state-owned assets. But some were already sold, and Mr. Key, the Prime Minister did not, it seems, as yet, see a reason, due to a voter turnout of only 40%, to follow more seriously, the results.
       Pretty odd - to go to such trouble, and indeed some expense, and then for the government to be able to ignore what their citizens wish. Surely such government does not have much right to continue, one would conclude - but then, that is New Zealand.

      

Columnists concerned about democracy - but not via citizen voting?

        Does is not seem odd? The many, recent editorials and comments by prominent columnists in Canada about – ideas to change the manner of selecting and retaining  leadership there. Right now a party selects its leader at a convention of a few thousand members. If that party wins the majority of seats in the subsequent election, that leader becomes prime minister. After being so chosen, such leader has very great control over the wishes of the other representatives. The leaders’ “whip” can whip  any of them, into the leaders’ bidding on votes within the legislature. He does this by ensuring that monies do, or do not, get to that ridings projects; or by kicking  out such rep from  various committees, or ministries.   The leader can even veto subsequent nominations within various ridings, if he does not approve of the local ridings’ wishes.  Ideas to alter these situations, aim  to  improve our democracy, which recent polls suggest is in very low esteem among the citizens.

         But no discussions that I have noticed, about how really to improve it – by actually permitting the citizen to vote on issues  via referendums. One group is even strongly organizing itself, it seems,  to try to have  representatives within various  ridings, who   believe strongly about its favourite issue – to provide a law limiting abortions. Such a difficult manner to try to establish your point of view. Canada is, indeed,  one of the very few countries that has no law at all on abortions. Would not it be better, however, to  just permit a public vote on that subject. That vote would occur at the same time as the periodic elections. That way, one would truly know the majority view. Is not that what democracy is supposed to be all about?

         It would hardly matter just what powers a leader may have,   if the citizens could vote on the issues they truly find not being properly pursued by their elected reps. That method is followed by many states and countries – but not in any manner at all in Canada. And who is truly even discussing that method of improvement? Any of our columnists? Not recently, anyway, that I have noticed. It is odd, you must admit.