Honesty and Political Integrity

Sustainable Democracies

Politics and integrity are two words not often found in the same sentence.  In fact, "political integrity" is usually considered an oxymoron.  The current New Zealand prime minister, John Key has his own particular version of political integrity which he has practised more or less consistently since he was first became prime minister in 2008.  His version is that resepective policies on the big, controversial issues should be put before the electorate by all parties.  When a party achieves a majority vote and can coalesce with minor parties to achieve a governing majority, it has an electoral mandate to carry out the policies which were deemed controversial, and over which the election was fought.  It is a case of what the electorate decided by majority vote, so we will do. 

The opposite has also been practised in New Zealand.
  This version is, say anything you like to the voter to gain his support; once in government, however, you can forget election promises and do as you wish.  This latter approach has generated over the years enormous cynicism and loathing of politicians.  It has reasonably led to the widespread belief that politicians are venal, self-serving, and implicitly corrupt. 

We much prefer Key's version of political integrity, despite its implicit weaknesses and flaws.  If democracy is to survive it must have governments run by people with publicly evident integrity and honesty.  In other words, the same ethics that govern human activity in the neighbourhood, business, employment relations, families and the community in general must apply to governments and politicians.  If they do not, over time democracy will produce successively corrupt governments, the country will eventually become ungovernable, and the resulting breakdown will mean an end to democratic rule.  Winston Churchill's dictum that democracy was by far and above the best of all other alternative forms of government has a suppressed premise: democracy can only survive if it operates in an atmosphere of political integrity. Without it a nation ends up where Greece and Italy are today. 

Key's version of political integrity requires that elections be regarded as contractually binding between successful parties and the people.  Election commitments are not just empty promises, but contractual obligations. 

Some examples of Key's ethical frame in this regard include his electoral commitment that whilst he remained prime minister he would not alter the terms and conditions of New Zealand Superannuation (a stupid commitment, but maintained consistently by him).  Another was his commitment to the electorate that the government would not sell any state assets during its first term and seek a mandate to do so at the next election, and only upon achieving that mandate would proceed to divest state assets to reduce debt.  Once again, he has carried this through faithfully and with integrity--even though it has been fiscally expensive. 

Just how important such commitments are to his modus operandi as prime minister were revealed recently by NZ Herald columnist, Fran O'Sullivan.  The issue in point was Key's dealings with the board of the government's coal company, Solid Energy.  The board wanted to grow the company and were looking to invest in other commercial energy opportunities.  But it needed new equity in order to do so.  The government, being fiscally restrained and paying down debt as fast as it could, refused to participate.  Whereupon Solid Energy's chairman, John Palmer canvassed investment from other international energy companies. 

Key went on to say Palmer's private view was that the Government should sell Solid Energy or allow substantial individual companies to take stakes.  "The problem with that, as I explained to him on numerous occasions, is that we campaigned on not selling SOEs unless we had a mandate. "As explained in 2011, we weren't going to have trade sales and foreign partners and, as I explained to him on numerous occasions, when we decided to do any capital injection it will be through the mixed ownership model in which we will be putting New Zealanders first.

"He had a view they would partner up with individual companies. And in a purely commercial world that may be a logical thing to do. But we don't live in that world, we live in a world where we make political guarantees to the New Zealand public and we honour them."

There is Key's doctrine of political integrity at work.  But it comes at a cost.  At the same time, the Key Government was pressuring Solid Energy and all other SOE's to increase their dividend flow to the government (due to the need for the more revenue to reduce debt, or at least stop it from ballooning out worse than it had), Solid Energy was provoked into borrowing to expand business.  Eventually the world coal price collapsed, leading to Solid Energy being on the hook for $380 million dollars to its bankers and facing bankruptcy.  The Crown will now have to bail them out, although Key is insisting that the bankers take a haircut as well (which seems right, since SOE's are not crown guaranteed).

Everyone of Key's contractual electoral commitments has come at a cost--which is to say that nothing is costless in the real world.  But given that, we believe that his style of political integrity has much to commend it.  It no doubt contributes to his current high popularity and the grudging respect that a good deal of the electorate has for him, even whilst disagreeing with him over particular issues and policies. 

The alternative is too odious to contemplate.  But notorious exponents of electoral dishonesty remain.  Here are two alternatives, both expounding their particular version of electoral "integrity".  The issue is what opposition parties would do if elected, since they oppose the current sale of another SOE--Mighty River Power.  Here is Winston Peters, a thoroughly disreputable, dishonest politician:

Mr Peters said he would be happy for a Government of which he was a part to borrow or to use the superannuation fund to buy back shares at no more than cost.  Mr Peters said his NZ First party was renowned for going into negotiations "knowing what we want and getting what we want".

"Borrowing money would make economic sense because the returns would make that totally feasible, but there are other resources," he said.  "You've got the superannuation fund, KiwiSaver or a number of avenues or options you could exercise."

Out of one side of his mouth he says, we would do such and such, but out of the other we can recite a  long track record of proving that anything is up for grabs in coalition negotiations and firm commitments made during an election can be wiped out once negotiations start, without a second thought.  Remember, this is the man who emphatically announced to the electorate during a political campaign that he was not interested in the "baubles of office" only to enter into coalition negotiations with the Labour Party and to accept the post of Foreign Minister.  Needless to say, Peters ended up that particular episode with the whiffs of scandal and corruption swirling around him. 

Another version is Labour Party leader, David Shearer.  With respect to renationalising Mighty River Power, we read his vacuous position:

Mr Shearer said, "We won't rule it out but we won't rule it in either." Labour would not be able to make any commitment on it before an election.

This is the Shearer version of political integrity: trust us.  We will know what we are doing.  Of course the electorate will not buy that, so in the next election campaign he will likely have to make a "firm" commitment one way or the other but his commitment will not be binding were he to lead a new government. 

We will see whether Key's version of political integrity will become a long standing fixture in democratic government in New Zealand or it will be an aberration amidst a long legacy of dishonesty and political legerdemain.