08-09-2019
New Zealand Politics
Are
we at CROSSROADS?
1994
to 2014
I
believe we are at crossroads.
The
major mistake was done in 1977.
We
are going to repeat this mistake after 40 years.
I
am referring to politics.
The
biggest mistake was that we give
absolute power to mediocre politicians.
They
do not know how to manage power and become megalomaniac.
We
change a corrupt regime with another corrupt regime.
End
result after 40 years is absolutely corrupt politicians in every nook
and corner.
I
have no idea how to resurrect or emerge out of this crisis but have
one
RESOLUTION.
Do
not give absolute power to politicians.
Then
we cannot take back, even the little freedom that existed before.
If
we repeat this mistake again, we will be doomed as a nation.
Below,
I reproduce from Wikipedia, what happened in New Zealand from 1994 to
1999.
Mind
you they have elections every three years.
In
1993 they had the first hung parliament after 1931.
Then
the labour leader resigned.
New
labour leader Helen Clerk, made the wise decision to appoint
one from her party as the speaker and offered one of labour members
to National Party to have a working majority.
National
party had 50 out of 99 seats (now they have 120 seats).
She
said, we lost and we should stop bickering and give the National
party a working majority, with reserving her right to oppose any
policies she or her party may
not agree.
Imagine
what would have happened in Sri-Lanka.
She
became the PM in 1999 and is currently heads the World (global)
Environment Forum.
Now
of course there are many parties and party swapping has become a
norm, which was not intended at first.
There
is only thin majority, but with “confidence and supply vote”
making the parliament viable for three years.
The
people have the say, if one is not good enough he or she is ousted in
three years.
There
are no places for cronies and corrupt politicians.
But
the progress in governance in New Zealand is obvious but in ours it
is always retrograde.
After
referendum, they changed the FPP (First Past the Post) to MMP to
mixed member proportional representation.
I
hope Victor
Ivan
would study New Zealand electoral reforms in detail.
Yes
an electoral revolution is necessary for Sri-Lanka.
An
electoral revolution- New Zealand Style!
New
Zealand Experience
MMP
In
1993 New Zealanders voted in a referendum to change their voting
system from the traditional first past the post (FPP) method to mixed
member proportional representation (MMP).
This
was the most dramatic change to the country's electoral system since
the introduction of women's suffrage exactly 100 years before.
How
and why did this electoral revolution come about?
The
origins of electoral reform lay in the gradual breakdown of public
trust and confidence in politicians, Parliament and the simple
certainties of the old two-party system.
This
process began in the 1950s and 1960s and gathered momentum in the
1970s and 1980s, decades marked by economic uncertainty and the
emergence of new social and political movements.
As
critics pointed out, the FPP system tended to create Parliaments
quite different in composition to those that the voters appeared to
want.
The
answer, some people argued, was a system of proportional
representation in which each party's share of the seats in Parliament
would be close to its share of the overall vote.
1993
Preliminary
results based on election night counts saw the country facing its
first hung parliament since 1931, with no party gaining the 50 seats
required for a majority.
The
National Party won 49 seats, a drop of 15 from before the election.
and Labour had won 46 seats, with the balance of power held with the
Alliance and New Zealand First, which won two seats each.
Official
counts saw the seat of Waitaki swing from Labour to National, giving
National 50 seats and Labour 45 seats.
This
meant that National kept its majority by only a single seat.
The
1993-1996 parliamentary term would see a number of defections from
both major parties, meaning that National would eventually be forced
to make alliances to retain power.
1996
The
1996 election eventually saw a victory for the governing National
Party, which won around a third of the vote. The opposition Labour
Party won slightly less.
The
election, however, was not decided by the comparative strengths of
the major parties - rather, the smaller New Zealand First party,
which won 17 seats, was placed in the position of "kingmaker",
able to provide the necessary majority to whichever side it chose.
Although
predicted by many to ally with Labour, New Zealand First leader
Winston Peters eventually chose to form a coalition with National,
thus preserving Prime Minister Jim Bolger's administration.
The
1996 election effectively showcased the difference made by the new
electoral system. The Alliance and New Zealand First, both of which
held two seats each in the old parliament, increased their
representation to 13 and 17 seats, respectively, as a result of the
change. The new ACT New Zealand also benefited, taking eight seats.
The MMP system did not, however, save the United New Zealand party -
United was virtually wiped out, retaining only a single seat. The
Conservative Party fared even worse, failing to remain in parliament
at all.
Also
notable in the 1996 election campaign was the Christian Coalition, an
alliance of the Christian Democrats and the Christian Heritage Party.
Although the party had briefly crossed the 5% threshold in some
polls, it gained only 4.33% at the election, and therefore did not
qualify for parliamentary representation.
With
the exception of the Maori Ratana movement, this is the closest that
an overtly religious party has come to winning representation in
parliament.
Voters
were prepared with MMP to vote for minor party candidates with their
electorate vote, hence in a number of electorates won by National or
Labour the other major party candidate came third or even fourth;
previously the two top polling candidates were almost always National
and Labour.
1999
As
most people expected, Labour was victorious.
It
did not, however, receive an absolute majority, gaining only 52 seats
(eight seats short of the half-way mark). Labour's former coalition
partner, the Alliance (which had splintered shortly before the
election), was not returned to parliament. However, the new
Progressive Coalition (now the Progressive Party) started by former
Alliance leader Jim Anderton won two seats, and remained allied with
Labour. The Greens, who were now distanced from Labour over the
genetic engineering controversy, gained nine seats (an increase of
two).
In
general, it was a bad election for the parties of the right. The
National Party, once referred to as "the natural party of
government", suffered its worst-ever electoral defeat, gaining
only 21% of the vote. ACT New Zealand, National's more right-wing
neighbour, failed to capitalize on the exodus of National supporters,
retaining the same number of seats as before.
Instead,
the most notable gains among opposition parties were made by two
centrist parties. One of these was Winston Peters's New Zealand First
party, a radical centrist and nationalist party opposed to
immigration.
Strong
campaigning by Peters allowed the party to recover from its serious
losses in the 1999 election. The other was United Future New Zealand
party, a centrist party based on a merger of the United Party and the
Future New Zealand party - primarily due to the performance of leader
Peter Dunne, the party shot from having one seat to having eight
seats.
Once
the final distribution of seats was determined, it was clear that
Labour would be at the centre of the government, and that it would be
allied with the Progressives. However, this still left Labour needing
support in matters of confidence and supply, as the two parties
together fell short of an absolute majority. Labour expressed a
preference for an "agreement" rather than a full coalition,
hoping to establish an arrangement similar to the one that existed
with the Greens prior to the election. Three realistic choices
existed for a partner - the Greens, United Future, and New Zealand
First.
Labour had repeatedly ruled out deals with New Zealand First during
the election campaign, and reaffirmed this soon after the election,
leaving just the Greens and United Future as candidates. After a
period of negotiation, Labour opted to ally with United Future, being
unwilling to change their genetic engineering policies to secure the
Green Party's support.
Labour
and the Progressives remained in power, with support in confidence
and supply votes from United Future.
2011
Following
the 2011 general election, the National Party entered into confidence
and supply agreements with ACT, the Māori Party and United Future to
continue the Fifth National Government.
These
arrangements give the National-led government a majority of seven
seats, with 64 on confidence-and-supply in the 121-seat Parliament
(note that there is an additional member Peter Dunne).
The
Labour, Green, New Zealand First and Mana parties are all in
opposition, but only the Labour Party constitutes the formal
Opposition.
At
the 2011 election, the National Party gained 59 seats, the Labour
Party 34 seats, the Green Party 14 seats, New Zealand First eight
seats, Māori three seats, and Mana, ACT, and United Future gained
one seat each.
As
of January 2013, two changes to the allocation have occurred.
In
2012, Brendan Horan was expelled from the NZ First caucus, meaning he
now sits as an Independent and NZ First now only has seven caucus
MPs.
On
31 May 2013, the Electoral Commission de-registered United Future
after it could not prove it had the 500 financial members required
for registration.
The
party successfully re-registered on 13 August 2013, but in the
interim its sole MP, Peter Dunne, sat in the house as an independent.
That
means current parliament have one excess than the nominated seats of
120.
