A New Political Black Beast?

Conviction Politicians Emerging

Roger Douglas has returned to Parliament. Helen Clark's alleged worst nightmare is about to unfold. Clark's invocation of a monster to frighten little children in the dark is having its effect. There are grumblings and warnings from both Labour and National over allowing Roger Douglas too close to the “levers of power.”

For example, according to once-a-journalist David Beatson, John Key should avoid Douglas like the plague because when Finance Minister in the 1980's he “was prepared to see a government destroyed rather than compromise on a free-market ideology that no longer commanded support among his political colleagues.” From Beatson, of course, this is shameless. Either he has fallen into dotage and his “recollectory” has gone walk-about, or he is deliberately dissembling.

For Beatson knows that Douglas did not destroy the Lange government. Douglas did the honourable thing—with the support of the majority of the Cabinet, he stood up to David Lange over principle, then gracefully submitted to Lange's decision to fire him as Finance Minister. Far from destroy the government, he left it intact, and submitted to his colleagues. The destruction, when it came was very much due to Lange's dithering.

In other words, rather than destroy a government he acted with integrity—such as is very rarely seen in our modern political world. His position, of course, was taken over by one David Caygill—and the Labour government went merrily on its way to electoral destruction, taking the country down with it: fiddling the books, creating false surpluses, misleading the voters, and leaving Ruth Richardson to attempt to right the sinking ship. All of which sounds like deja vu all over again.

Let us have lots more politicians of integrity such as Douglas. For what did he manifest? In Douglas we have had a rare politician—one who puts beliefs and convictions above personal ambition, status, or power. If he commanded the support of his colleagues he held fast; yet he submitted to the ignominy of being fired by a leader who had himself lost the support of his cabinet colleagues. What is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.

That is precisely the kind of integrity we must demand from all our politicians. Our nation desperately needs politicians who disclose who they are and what they stand for. Or, does Beatson and his ilk really think we are better served by politicians who say one thing, then merrily go on to do the opposite? We do not care whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Roger Douglas's views on this or that. At the end of the day, with Douglas we know who we are dealing with, and we can decide accordingly.

Is Beatson really suggesting we are better served by a Helen Clark who declared that she would do “whatever it takes” to gain and maintain a hold over the Treasury benches, regardless of how much our fragile constitutional fabric was shredded in the process? Is this the new, better way Beatson would applaud? Or, would Beatson think it much better for the body politic to have politicians like the Greens deliberately cloaking their extreme centralist and radical political ideologies in vacuous environmental slogans, thereby deceiving the electorate?

Or are we better served by politicians such as Winston Peters whose understanding of the Great Game was to brand himself as the relentless opponent of money buying politicians and policies, only to be clandestinely on the take himself? Is this part of the “fresh solution” that Beatson hails?

The one character trait we must have in our elected leaders—and over which there can be no compromise—is integrity. That means we have to demand that all our politicians are conviction politicians. The electorate has a duty to demand that those standing for public office tell us what their convictions are; once elected they need to be held accountable to those convictions, for good or ill.

The Beatsons of the world will tell us that such a state of affairs would be unworkable. It would lead to unstable governments. Vacuous rubbish. Instability only occurs when politicians demand, “my way or the highway.” It does not occur when a conviction politician says, “if I cannot persuade you on this matter, I will return to the back benches, leaving you to govern as you see fit.” Such humility is laudable for it sacrifices personal ambition on the altar of the public good. If those who are left bumble, stumble, and fail it is not the fault of those departing.

We believe that if we had more honourable conviction politicians, the days of expansive, hoodwinking promises to seduce and entice a venal electorate would pass. If we had more conviction politicians, political debates and discourse will be far less ad hominem and far more about policies, principles and issues of weight. Parliamentary debates would be much more weighty and grave affairs.

Therefore, we are pleased that incoming Prime Minister, John Key appears to be making a genuine effort to keep his word, and to carry out what he said he would. That is change we can believe in.