Dear
Ms B
Thank
you for your prompt response to my letter of 1 October, 2006.
Inspired by the early successes of the USSR in space
exploration, from 15 to 25 I regarded the Soviet Union as the model society for
the entire planet. As a result, the Leninist concept of the CP as “the vanguard
of the proletariat” dominated my thinking. The invasion of Czechoslovakia in
1968 woke me up. That awakening was further advanced by two year’s work and
residence in Russia in 1970 and 1971.
Back in the UK I became active in both the Trade Union
movement and the Conservative Party. My primary focus was on the promotion of
human rights in Eastern Europe, especially the Soviet occupied Baltic States,
the plight of Jewish people wishing to migrate to Israel, and the abuses of
psychiatry in the detention of dissidents. I developed an immense admiration
for the work of Andrei Sakharov and of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, amongst many
others.
In both the Conservative Party, and in the Trade Union
that I was active in – ASTMS - I saw again the all too human tendency for
politically ambitious people to seek to impose their will upon others. The
Conservative Party had many members with a patrician conviction that
politicians somehow “have a right to rule”, and there were people in the Trade
Unions who seemed to have a similar view, but from the left. Fortunately,
ordinary working people have a far more robust sense of democracy than the
faithful followers of political parties.
In 1978 I took up employment with Databank in
Wellington and later became a NZ citizen. I became active in the Bank Officers’
Union and later in the National Party. In the last 15 years I have ceased to
have anything to do with political parties and my Union connections have
lapsed. What has taken their place is an involvement in community organisations
and a deep conviction that the “Westminster” political system is infantile and
profoundly outdated. I want to actively promote a movement to grant ourselves
our first democratic constitution. This is the point at which I can see we have
some interest in common, but also some very deep differences.
The first difference leaps out at me when you express,
in a patrician tone, that you “wish to encourage greater democracy and public
participation in the political process” and at once you follow this with your
“severe reservations about the ability of BCIR to deliver results that are fair
and uphold fundamental human rights.”
What on earth is “fair” about 0.005% of the voting
members of our society of NZ determining the rules by which the remaining 99.995%
are to live? Surely, one of the most fundamental of human rights must be to
have a direct vote on those rules. The assembly of which you are a member has
completely usurped the sovereignty of the people and is thereby much more
capable of infringing human rights than any referendum conducted in a free and
open society.
Your remarks about the alleged effect of the
advertising campaign in favour of FPP are pretty insulting to the people of New
Zealand. You must know from your own experience that there is always a
significant narrowing of the range of public opinion when an issue gets
thoroughly discussed. That effect can be observed at work even in the case of
your own proposal. The money spent by the defenders of FPP was well spent in
that it definitely educated the public, not just about FPP, but indirectly also
about MMP and its rival STV, which I favoured.
What sticks out a mile though, is your distrust of the
people. It is not surprising; you are exhibiting the natural reaction of a
class that sees its power threatened. If you would but cast your eyes at the
way the Swiss Parliament works within the context of knowing that it has the
absolute constitutional obligation to obey the sovereign will of the people,
you would see that it has a significant moderating effect on the policies of
all parties, yet they still exist and flourish, precisely because they are the
creative sources of new policies. The sovereignty of the people is
unquestioned: assemblies may propose; only the people can dispose.
Yes, you fear the natural conservatism of the people.
That was exactly Lenin’s fear and why he detested free Trade Unions. On your
proposal, despite the heavy bias in the media supporting it, the pragmatic
attitudes of the people would mean you would probably lose in a referendum. I
hedge and say “probably” because one can never be certain about the outcome.
But you should have the courage of your convictions and be prepared to lose.
You would then know much more precisely than any trivial opinion poll what the
people as a whole really think of your proposal.
There is a Green Party policy that I support, and that
is: the idea of treating all drug use and abuse as a medical and not a criminal
matter. It is a rational approach, but I would not accept it from a mere parliament.
This would also be, intrinsically, a matter for a referendum. It would probably
be lost. Yet in the process, the people would have to learn so much more about
it, that a few years later, another referendum might succeed. That is
democracy. Any other way that excludes the people from the direct decision is
fascism.
A referendum decision on your proposal would not be
uninformed. Just take a look at the background information that is supplied to
the Swiss people ahead of the dozen or so referendums they vote on every year.
Were the peoples of France and Holland uninformed when they chose to reject the
proposed European Constitution? We would expect to see the same degree of
supporting material to be made available from both sides on your proposal. I
doubt that businesses, whether big or small, would be likely to favour one side
more than the other on this matter.
There is no question of presenting a set of variations
to be voted on, although the thought does occur to me that using the STV system
one might be able to do such a thing in some special circumstances. However,
the main purpose of referendums is to set policy directions, and here, as in
most cases of policy decision-making, the question does resolve itself to a
straight binary choice. You have made up your mind and no contrary opinions and
evidence will sway it. You go further for you show no compunction about
imposing your view regardless of the will of the people. There is a political
dirty word for that attitude and I have already used it a couple of paragraphs
above.
Turning to the question of the role of BCIR, you view
this as posing a threat to our commitment to human rights. I really cannot
fathom how you get to this view. Without constitutionally embedded BCIR we lack
one of the most fundamental of human rights. I am glad you raise the question
of written constitutions. That is exactly where democracy has to be most firmly
entrenched. How curious it is though, to see you siding with the patrician
gentlemen who drew up the constitution of the United States of America. They
too distrusted the people, which is why their presidential contests are so
profoundly undemocratic. Worse still, a supreme court denies the people’s
ultimate sovereignty to them, and there is no means by which the people can
alter the constitution by referendum.
In complete contrast, the constitution of the Swiss
Confederation was created by referendums: The first in 1848, a revision in
1876, and the most recent complete revision in 1999. It can only be altered by
referendums of the people. Any change to the constitutional rights of Swiss
citizens is required, by the constitution, to be ratified by the people.
Legislative proposals approved by the Swiss Parliament are open for six months
to a veto referendum if 50,000 voters demand this. Citizens Initiatives require
the signatures of 100,000 voters to authorize them, and the result is binding.
That is a democratic constitution. It is what we need here. Indeed, it is
needed throughout the world. No country has ever gone to war on a referendum.
You worry about “knee-jerk” reactions leading to
possible threats to human rights. Which is the most likely source of such a
phenomenon:
1)
the lengthy process by which a referendum is set up
and validated? Or
2)
a “snap” vote in a one-chamber assembly? Or
3)
a government?
The Swiss people have approved some curbs on the
granting of refugee status. Yes, it is a limitation on the human rights of
possibly some people. But the people of Switzerland also have their human right
not to be swamped by people from wholly different cultures! There have to be
limits, and there have to be compromises. I think that there must be many
people in many countries of Europe that will look upon the impressive ability
of the Swiss people to truly control what happens to their country, down to the
smallest Commune, with increasing admiration.
You are “unimpressed by the record of the State of
California”. How arrogant that sounds, and how out of touch with that aspect of
the United States political system that is really vibrant and dynamic. By no
means all the States have C.I.R. provisions like California, but those that do
are constantly having to battle against big business interests that favour
politicians who want to curb that basic human right because it is always a
thorn in their side and of politicians.
One day the people of New Zealand will grant
themselves their first democratic constitution. I shall do what I can to
promote that cause. I just wish that there were enough people in the political
parties, of whatever persuasion, that understood the real meaning of democracy.
You could help by placing your proposal directly before the people for them to
decide its fate.
Kind regards,
Dominic
Baron.