Divvying up the democracy funding pie
Lots of debate about public funding for political party campaigning, which The Red Letter has summarised well, including links to other key posts about this issue. No Right Turn brings up a point though that I would like to discuss further.
Why is the assumption that funding should be handed out proportionate to the support a party currently has (whatever formula you use)? Surely this just reinforces the status quo, makes it easier for National and Labour to remain unchallenged as the core components of any government, and generally heavily discourages new ideas and new policies from being promoted in our democratic debates?
I raised this the other day with a Labour member and was quickly slapped down with the claim that if there was significant funding for low or no polling parties then everyone would start up a political vehicle to get some of the dosh. Now that's easily dealt with by having criteria about how long a party has been established, minimum levels of membership, minimum numbers of candidates etc. Not to mention an auditing process at the end where the party would need to account for how the money was spent to support their election campaign.
So what really is the objection to a method of funding that is based not on incumbency but on giving New Zealanders, the actual voters, a fair chance to hear from a wide range of political perspectives?
Update, 8.51pm Thurs Aug 17 2006: Jordan has a post up about the reasons to support public funding, and the reasons National opposes it, which I largely agree with. Can anyone guess which bit I don't think is fabbo?
9 comments:
Because what ever system "they" chose will have to work in the interests of the Labour/National capitalist hegemony.
Don't be fooled that democracy exists in this country and that ideas and thinking are to be encouraged.
You've raised some good points in this post. It makes a lot of sense.
I think every registered party should be given the same amount of state funding and there should be no private funding of political parties. Then we'd see who's voted in. They should also drop the 5% threshold to 0.7% or so.
Sadly anon I think you are right - the two main parties control the funding systems and have a vested interest in not being fair. Just as National opposed proportional representation (and some within Labour did too if I recall correctly). Bah humbug.
I'd like to see the threshold dropped too - it's not as if the House is too small to have representation to 5% or less parties.
Again, incumbency rules OK. (And party hopping is indirectly encouraged too, as the only way to effectively start a new political party).
You answered your own question Span! "...makes it easier for National and Labour to remain unchallenged as the core components of any government..." Seek no further for an explanation.
Nor does it surprise me that Labour members hate the thought of lots of people starting up their own political parties. Democracy's never been Labour's strong point. I do hope though, that the Labour member you spoke to recognised the irony in Labour not wanting other political parties to misuse public money...
The down side of public funding is that it strengthens the power of the political parties executive at the detriment of its members. The executive are no loger reliant on its members for income generation and can then ride rough shod of their wishes.
Thus removing a layer of democracy from the People.
Raises another interesting point in how much democracy there is inside political parties anyway. Are its members actualy listen to and their wishes implemented?
Personally favour both public and private funding with the priviso of stringent and totally independent auditing like you suggest.
One thing you cant cost is the political parties members donation of time. Hence the larger the party the more feet on the ground, the wider the message is spread.
Why does public support have to be such a big component? Can you not see Jordan how it supports incumbency??
I find it rather convenient for those who support parties already in Parliament, and already in large numbers, to want to dole out money based on votes and support previously received.
We all know how crucial coverage is to getting votes - money ensures coverage. The inability for parties other than Labour and National (really) to access big dollops of broadcasting is one of the aspects that ensures they remain the two big parties.
Are Labour and National so scared of real competition, fair competition, that they can't deal with a funding system that puts parties on a more even footing?
Cause and effect, Jordan. A democracy _should_ be about the people making _informed_ choices between all the available options. That can only happen if all the options have an equal chance present their case.
Third party endorsement in a manner that replicates what the Exclusive Brethren did for the National party will be of huge benefit to the bigger political parties.
These endorsements will paraphrase the supported political parties sales pitch to the electorate but appear in the manner of concerned citizens exercising their right to free speech.
The third party's endorsement is off course beyond the election commissions funding limits for political parties.
To some extend this has been happening for a long time but in a rather unsophisticated and under funded way.
One could get a not too pretty picture of polital parties executives being held accountable not to their members but to third party influences.
If the NZ Labour Party continues to take more of a Third Way position, embedded in both social and economic liberalism, then you may find yourselves going down the track of the earlier Liberal Party. That is, a large dominant party that eventually fizzes out.
I'm not really sure why Labour calls itself Labour in New Zealand. It hardly works solely in the interests of workers forced to sell their "labour". Why doesn't the Labour Party advocate that workers take over the means of production? Wouldn't that advance the interests of workers?
This Labour Party is more about advancing the interests of the already wealthy and crossing their fingers for the trickle down theory to work.
Do you see any similarities between the NZ and Canadian situation where the Liberal Party there has moved further to the Right, much like the NZ Labour Party (compared with the early and mid 20th century), thus leaving ground for other left wing parties? Or do you, like others in Labour, think that any chance of that happening was in the post 1984-1990 Government?
The current system is hopeless biased in favour of parties that appeal to the wealthy. I loathe the National Front, but if they get sufficient support to become a registered political party, then yes, they should have an equal opportunity to present their policies. Fortunately, they don't have that level of support, and I'd recommend raising the bar further (say, requiring a thousand members instead of the current 500).
Post a Comment