New Zealand has a private members’ day every week in Parliament. I cannot remember when in the last century the Australian Parliament last passed a private members bill, much less gave any time to hear private members’ bills.
Only 15 private members’ bills or private senators’ bills introduced into the Australian Parliament since 1901 have been passed into law. Several private members’ bills are passed every year in New Zealand.
One of the reasons that New Zealand has so many private members’ bills and allocate so much time for them is it is not a federal state. There are about 80 in the private members’ bills ballot; two are drawn per week.
Hot button social issues which are usually solved by letting one state take the initiative within a federation must instead in NZ must be dealt within one Parliament. The vent for this tension is a greater role for private members’ bills.
Federalism, for example, gave Congress the opportunity to deflect Marijuana decriminalisation to the states by defunding federal drug law enforcement in 2014 in states that have legalised marijuana. This allowed Congress to have it both ways by neither decriminalise marijuana at the federal level nor frustrate the movement in the states to decriminalise marijuana.
I believe there is litigation before the federal courts as to whether that defunding extends to existing marijuana prosecutions.
I am sure that will delight the legal pedants. They can work out how a US attorney can even stand up in court and discuss the prosecution when Congress has defunded marijuana drug law enforcement in that state. Presumably they pay their own taxi fare to court?
In founding his own political party, Gareth Morgan has fallen to the populist delusion that all that is needed is for a great leader to get in who is one of us rather than one of them and she will be alright.
In common with all populists, Morgan believes there is one will of the people frustrated by a conniving elite rather than many clashing visions of the good life that politicians must balance. Judis explains
Leftwing populists champion the people against an elite or an establishment. Theirs is a vertical politics of the bottom and middle, arrayed against the top.
Rightwing populists champion the people against an elite that they accuse of favouring a third group, which can consist, for instance, of immigrants, Islamists, or African American militants. Rightwing populism is triadic: it looks upward, but also down upon an out group.
Leftwing populism is historically different to socialist or social democratic movements. It is not a politics of class conflict, and it does not necessarily seek the abolition of capitalism. It is also different to a progressive or liberal politics that seeks to reconcile the interests of opposing classes and groups. It assumes a basic antagonism between the people and an elite at the heart of its politics.
John Rawls talked about the need for reasonable pluralism because so many people have different ideas of the way to go forward. Political institutions must be designed with that diversity in mind as David Gordon explained in a book review
The situation that drives Rawls to his theory is that of people in a large society like the United States who are divided by conflicting conceptions of the good. Some of these conceptions may be better than others, and one may in fact be the correct one: Rawls does not commit himself on this question. But none of these conceptions can be shown to be true in the strong sense that it would be unreasonable for anyone to reject it. This state of affairs Rawls terms “the fact of reasonable pluralism.”
Given reasonable pluralism, it would be wrong for the holders of one conception to impose their views on others; respect for others requires that we defend our political views with reasons others could acknowledge.
Our aim, Rawls holds, should not be a mere modus vivendi with those who profess other conceptions of the good. Rather, we should seek a stable society in which people decide disputed questions by democratic discussion.
The idea is to have a political system with sufficient checks and balances that whoever is in power does not do too much harm nor gets seriously out of alignment with the wishes of the electorate. That was the idea behind MMP: divide power between more parties and make all elections close.
It goes back to James Madison’s idea that governments are not populated by angels and so the powers of government and how they are distributed should take account of that. The idea is politicians behave in line with public interest because of the institutions that constrain and shape their choices.
It is wise to design constitutional safeguards to minimise the damage done when those crazies to the right or left of you get their chance in office, as they will sooner or later rather than focus on the powers you and those that currently agree with you should have in your few days in which you fleetingly have a majority.
Too many policies and ideas of the one political party or another assume that they are the face of the future, rather than just another political party that will hold power as often as not and always for an uncertain time. Too many policies and ideas of the Left assume that they are the face of the future, rather than just another political party that will hold power as often as not.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
In Hume’s spirit, I will attempt to serve as an ambassador from my world of economics, and help in “finding topics of conversation fit for the entertainment of rational creatures.”
Recent Comments