The Canterbury dictatorship
Puddleglum
at The Political Scientist has written an encyclopedic and scathing
critique of the Nats’ dictatorship in Canterbury. Some extracts
below – but go and read the whole post here.
13
September, 2012
ECan,
the government and the ‘Picture of Dorian Gray’
It
is hard to understand why it appears to have received so little
attention or commentary nationwide (with some honourable
exceptions).
The extension
of the rule of the ECAN Commissioners announced
by David Carter (Local Government Minister) and Amy Adams
(Environment Minister) has created what may be a political ‘tipping
point’ in Christchurch, if not Canterbury as a whole.
Saturday’s editorial
in The Press -
titled ‘Black
day for democracy in Christchurch‘
– is astoundingly blunt:
“The
brief statement announcing the continued suspension of democracy at
Environment Canterbury will take a place in New Zealand history. It
outlines the most radical
denial of voting rights that this nation has experienced in recent
times –
a fact that disadvantages
Cantabrians and besmirches
the Government.”
And,
“That
the Government has prolonged this system – it
is called dictatorship –
is deplorable and foolish.
It not only denies the province healthy administration but
it strengthens a backlash
against National in
the province.”
And
again,
“At
the time of the original appointment of the commissioners, people
were outraged,
even though ECan was not popular and regarded as partly
paralysed. Cantabrians
hated a main branch of their democracy being removed.
Had the earthquakes and the difficult and prolonged recovery
not diverted the anger,
National would have paid a penalty here in the 2011 general election.
The anger will return
now,
this time with an added
intensity.”
The
Government,
“relies
on the assertion that the commissioners provide efficiency, strong
governance, effectiveness, problem-solving, stability.”
Those
are the justifications
of every tin-pot dictator,
echoing the sentiments
of Suva.
…
When
we ‘bought’ the neo-liberal turn that began in the 1980s we also
bought into the notion – whether or not we realised it at the time
– that New Zealand, as a society, was “dedicated
above all to
material prosperity“.
Even though those reforms may well have not achieved that end (i.e.,
material prosperity), the significant point is that that was
used to legitimate them – that economic activity was, ultimately,
what New Zealand, and New Zealanders, were all about – and
we bought it.
At
that point, democracy took a back seat rhetorically. It also,
potentially, could take a back seat in reality.
Over
the past two years that potential has played itself out in
Canterbury.
This
is why David Carter and Amy Adams could say, with a straight face and
believing that they would not be challenged in any way that might
threaten their decision – that democracy had to be abandoned. They
could be assured that a significant proportion of New Zealanders
bought the argument that (supposed) economic efficiency trumps
democracy.
“The
Canterbury region has significant economic
growth potential but
also faces significant challenges,”
she said.
”It
is critical for New
Zealand that
the planning governance
structure for Environment Canterbury is stable, effective and
efficient.
“To keep
the freshwater management work on track,
we intend toretain the limited
appeal rights on
decisions made by Environment Canterbury on plans and policy
statements relating to freshwater management.”
And
it’s also why John Key could engage in what is now his trademark,
exasparatingly self-contradictory form of prose,
[John
Key] said he had confidence
in the people of Christchurch to pick the right people,
but keeping
the commissioners would deliver the best results for Canterbury.
In
a more plain-speaking manner, Key ran this technocratic justification
for the subordination of democracy right the way up the flagpole:
“In
reality, with the Christchurch earthquakes coming along, it was our
view that if
we wanted to have an operative water plan and
the issues of
water resolved once and for all for
the Cannterbury [sic]region, it was important to have another
three years of commissioners,”
Key said.
An
“operative
water plan”
(the ‘technical matter’ of a ‘plan’), you see, cannot be
achieved democratically. Resolving the highly politically-contentious
“issues
of water”
“once
and for all“,
significantly “for
the Canterbury region”
– and not for the Canterbury people–
requires, in the government’s judgment, “another
three years of commissioners“.
And
Key continued,
“We
want to go back to democracy, we understand the issues and we
considered them very closely, but in the end the primary factor was
that we thought there
needed to be a successful outcome and the
job wasn’t yet done.“
This
“job”
that “wasn’t
yet done”
is clearly one that democratic processes cannot be guaranteed to
achieve.
…
I
am angry.
Do
these people not understand – or do they simply not care – that
the most important aspect of any recovery is not ‘business’ or
‘economic activity’? It is – since they clearly need reminding
– collective cohesion and the sense of some sort of power and
control that a people have in relation to their future.
It
surely is no mere coincidence that appointing ECan commissioners for
a further three years puts it conveniently
beyond the 2014 date for the implementation of the Land
and Water Plan. That
plan would have been potentially amendable – by a newly elected
council – should an election for councillors have been held in the
second half of 2013, as previously promised. But, now, with this
latest announcement it will become a cemented-in ‘fact on the
ground’ that any subsequent Council will no doubt decide it has to
live with – for better or worse.
As
John Key put it, by then the “job” will be done. ‘We’ will be
faced with a fait
accompli.
Anyone
who has seen – and experienced – the anti-democratic essence of
this government beneath its supposed ‘centrist’, ‘pragmatist’
makeover, can only hope that one day soon its politically loathsome
acts will lead to a Dorian Gray-like downfall, so that all we will be
left with is the curious memory of a shiny image that no longer
corresponds to the ugly reality evident to all:
“When
they entered, they found hanging upon the wall a splendid portrait of
their master as they had last seen him, in all the wonder of his
exquisite youth and beauty. Lying on the floor was a dead man, in
evening dress, with a knife in his heart. He
was withered, wrinkled, and loathsome of visage.
It was not till they had examined the rings that they recognized who
it was.”
(Chapter
20)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.