In an opinion piece from the Nelson Mail (5 Sept. 2009) entitled – “King John ignores the shrieks at his peril”, Chris Salt, former police inspector and Riwaka tourism operator looks, at the question: What can we say about the ‘anti-smacking law’ referendum? Chris holds a masters degree in public sector management and takes a keen interest in issues related to social justice and the role of government…… Chris Salt wrote……
After the 1990 referendum when 70 percent of respondents voted for MMP Mike Moore said the people had not spoken they had screamed. What can we say about the anti smacking referendum? The people did not scream, they shrieked! The difference is that Jim Bolger listened but John Key chooses to interpret a shriek as a whimper. According to him and I quote, 1.6 million New Zealanders, “still have some concerns and want a high degree of comfort”. It is not concern or comfort Mr Key should be addressing but all those ‘No’ boxes containing a big tick.
The issue now goes well beyond to smack or not to smack. It’s about our democracy. Correct me if I am wrong, but we have never given our prime ministers a mandate to ignore us, but to represent us. The received wisdom holds that democracy is supposed to heed the will of the people. A condescending attempt at appeasement demeans the clear will of the electorate.
The instances when politicians have used their imagined mandate to act against the public will and common sense are now legion. Lowering the legal drinking age and then giving the liquor industry the green light to concoct and advertise an array of teenage elixirs was breathtakingly irresponsible. Privatising the telecom industry and power grid without ensuring there would be effective competition and significant re-investment defies comprehension. Insult has followed injury. We have now saddled our younger generation with an unbridled drinking culture we actually wanted to harness and allowed excessive profit taking by key industries.
Unless John Key acts decisively on the anti-smacking legislation we can all cry bitter tears for our democracy. It will have become a charade. When elected representative deny the will of the people by hiding behind the law the time to make citizens initiated referenda binding on government has come.
But that is only half the story. Pointing the bone at our elected representatives is just one side of a tarnished coin. We need to look at ourselves. The old adage that we get the government we deserve reminds us that we are responsible for its quality. If we fail to protect our interests we can hardly complain when our ancient democratic rights are ignored. Perhaps after 800 years another King John needs to be dragged to Runnymede.
At a time like this two historians lurking in the back pages of history need to be lifted out and dusted off. Professor Alexander Tyler, writing three centuries back and Sir Arnold Toynbee, who completed an epic study of 21civilisations some 70 years ago, would not be surprised by today’s events. Tyler concluded that nations pass through an eight stage process, lifting themselves out of bondage to grasp liberty and abundance before sliding back into subjugation. He traced this downward spiral through complacency to apathy and then dependency. From there the path back to bondage is only a short hop.
Toynbee identified five states that defined a civilisation in decline – truancy, abandon, guilt, drift and promiscuity (not of the sexual kind). He concluded that civilisations mark their demise with an uncritical acceptance of just about anything, over indulgence in distracting entertainments and a self defeating attitude bedded in a sense of powerlessness. The fact that Tyler and Toynbee were separated by centuries and yet reached similar conclusions is truly spooky.
If our elected representatives at either the national level or local level can get away with dismissing the will of the people or denying us an effective voice we have to ask some serious questions about ourselves. Are we too distracted by entertainments, too complacent, too fatalistic to critically examine the state of our nation? Are we too apathetic to fight for real change? When our governing institutions rely on legislation or policy weapons to say you do what we want or we will make you, we have a problem. If we append to that a national psyche wedded to a nanny state we have dependency. If we then add to this mix a government that thinks it can do what it wants despite the rest of us we don’t have democracy any more. All that is left is a looming bondage and the spectral shadows of two dead historians who saw it coming because it has happened before.
Published with permission of author Chris Salt.
Source: Nelson Mail 5 September 2009
Recent Articles on the Issue from NZ Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-smacking-debate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501165&objectid=10595856
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10596584
Leave a Reply