Monday 23 June 2008

Playing the Political Game--or Not.

We Need a Statesman, Not a C-Grade Ham Actor

One of the reasons folks follow national political discourse is its entertainment value. It can elide from the most startling game of charades to the theatre of the absurd in an instant. These days, political theatre has become so extreme, it requires a huge "willing suspension of disbelief" amongst the audience—which, of course, is the electorate.

When politicians are asked to explain or account for their outrageous behaviour or antics, they usually shrug and say, “Well, it's just politics. It's just part of the game we play. When I called my opponent in the house 'a broad yellow streak looking for a backbone to massage' I didn't really mean it, any more than an actor on stage would mean it. All of us involved know it's just a game.”

Well, unfortunately for politicians, most people in the community don't regard it as a game. Anything that carries the sanction of monopolistic force and compulsion cannot be regarded lightly. They are not willing to grant politicians the "willing suspension of disbelief". This is why politicians are generally at the lowest rungs of the ladder when it comes to surveys on what people regard as trustworthy professions. Most people see politicians as people who play roulette with their lives in the most cavalier manner. Most people regard politics as a convocation of C-grade pantomime actors, unable to deal with profound issues with even a modicum of truth or integrity. Underneath it all, most suspect politicians to be utterly venal and self-serving.

Well, these conceptions of politicians may be more or less just. But every so often the theatre of the absurd throws up politicians who are so extreme they threaten to destroy the game itself. During this government's term of office, we have seen two such harbingers of despite—from two very different poles.

The first is the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. She has substantially damaged the game. Clark does not believe that politics is a charade. For her it has always been deadly serious. For her it is personal all the way. She is a true believer. She is a hater of her opponents. They are morally offensive to her. For her, the jibes are not good-natured. They are metaphorical knives. This explains why Clark seems deeply disliked by her own colleagues. She is playing in the game, but appears not to realise it's a game, just like a rugby player who wants to carry on the biffo, despite the game having ended.

But this also explains in part why her popularity held up for so long. The electorate saw in her a politician who at last treated the whole enterprise with the seriousness and gravitas that it deserved. It was only when they began to understand what policies and direction Clark truly believed in, that they became a bit wary. Then when Clark took herself and her cause so seriously she was prepared to ride rough-shod over constitutional conventions and ram through self-serving legislation in the justification that she had a higher calling that required and legitimised such sedition—it was only then that the electorate began to become deeply uneasy.

The second politician who has risked destroying the game is Winston Peters. Yes, he comes onto the field from a very different direction than Clark. He is the master gamesman, the ultimate charade player. He plays the game so enthusiastically and extremely as a game that the public have become heartily disgusted with him. Unfortunately, Peters is displaying every day that he has become so corroded by his long time on the stage that he thinks the game is the truth, it is the reality.

Just this weekend, we have been treated to what must amount to the height of self-serving political hypocrisy. Peters has been fulminating against the Fijian Government for its alleged hacking into e-mails which purportedly show the New Zealand Government to be conspiring against the current Fijian regime. This is the same Peters who lauded and clapped and cheered when the e-mails of Don Brash were hacked and used by his political opponents—including Peters. He laughed and jibed a treat. Such things will not be lost on the Fijian Government. His credibility and mana in Suva must now be beneath measurement. Our country is not well served by such a buffoon.

But in the same weekend, the same Peters, apparently with the irony lost upon him, announced his candidacy for the electorate seat of Tauranga, and compared himself to Muhammed Ali. He appears so taken with his own spin that he can no longer see it for what it is. The Game has become the reality. He has overlooked that the most graphic image conveyed by Ali these days is of an incoherent, brain diseased, crippled old man. A man to be pitied. How ironic that one of the most extreme players of the political charade has chosen an image that conveys so accurately all that Peters now represents, while he himself misses the point.

Clark and Peters have equally undermined the charade of politics, but for very different reasons. But this has created a profound opportunity—rarely seen in political history. It had created an opportunity for someone in political leadership to step up to chart a new direction. If someone were to stand up who eschewed the political theatre of the absurd, who, while being irrepressibly good humoured and humble, would show that they treated the issues of government and law with the utmost seriousness and respect, who would demonstrate profound regard for historical constitutional conventions, who would regard holding office as a fiduciary privilege rather than a right, who would despise cheap political points and the scoring of propaganda points, and who had an abiding respect for the citizens of the nation—that person would have the opportunity to lead our nation into a new beginning.

Such opportunities do not come along often. Will they be taken? Or will we be condemned to just one more act in play which never seems to end in the political theatre of the absurd.

At this juncture in its history, New Zealand desperately needs a statesman, not a two-bit, ham actor. Will Athens be able to produce one? We will see.

No comments: