Now it’s your turn to fight for Democracy, citizens of NZ.

The passing of the Electoral Finance Act on 1/1/08 was a significant nail in the coffin of democracy in NZ. For a Government to both vote itself a multi-milion dollar electoral war chest, whilst at the same time restricting free speech, dissent, and expenditure on political campaigning for the private citizen was beyond belief in a supposed “representative democracy”.

Over the last month, People Power NZ have recorded their active dissent against the passing of this Act, by taking “direct action” protest againt the instigators of this anti-democratic assault on personal freedom.

Having “led from the front” on this issue by taking protest action (as opposed to just writing about it and doing nothing to back up the rhetoric), People Power NZ believe that it is time for the citizens of this country to take their own action in reclaiming real democracy for New Zealand.

 Both longitudanal apathy and a sense of “learned powerlessness” seems to have permeated the majority of the NZ voting populations mindset over recent years.

Over the last month, People Power NZ have demonstrated that apathy and learned powerlessness can be overcome with motivation and action. We now wish to establish as to whether there are any NZ’ers left in this country (apart from us) who have the courage and determination to stand up for what they believe in, and to actively fight against the growing Government-sanctioned totalitarianism that now permeates our nation.

People Power NZ thus now invites the citizens of NZ to become motivated and active in the fight for democracy in this election year.

Because if you don’t, then we as NZ citizens will deserve everything we get.

People Power NZ

Bryce Edwards: Anti-Labour website shut down.

ePolitics meets political finance in the case of Andrew Moore’s Don’t Vote Labour website being shut down after the Electoral Commission informed Moore that he stood to be fined up to $10,000 if he continued to publish it without providing his personal details. In stark contrast, the Commission has also publicly stated that political party websites don’t necessarily need to comply with the same rules. The shutting down of this anti-Labour website is the first case under the EFA that shows just how ridiculous and anti-democratic the EFA is. [Read more below]

Under New Zealand’s electoral law all websites that advocate for or against a political party are classified as ‘election advertisements’ during election year. They must therefore include the name and residential address of the authorising publisher. While some types of website activities are exempt under the Electoral Finance Act (EFA), such as blogs and newspapers, general websites are not.

Therefore the Electoral Commission has contacted Andrew Moore to demand that he publish his name and home address – No PO Box numbers allowed – to comply with the EFA. Like many individuals Moore doesn’t want to have his residential address publicised on the internet. He says that ‘Since I live at home, there is no way that I would be prepared to do this, as it would place my family and the house itself at risk’. This is a fair point. Political activists risk abusive calls, letters, visits, and possible property damage or worse when their home addresses are widely publicised. And the more radical the opinions expressed by the activist, the more likely their homes are to be targeted. So anyone not wanting their family home address being publicised on a politically contentious website is making a fair point. Moore is also probably correct when he says that the Electoral Commission’s actions are ‘a breach of freedom of speech’.

A drafting error?

Kiwiblog points out that the prosecution and shutting down of websites such as dontvotelabour.co.nz is not merely due to a drafting error or oversight in the EFA, but a deliberate choice made by those political parties: ‘Labour and the Greens voted against an amendment which would have had all non commercial speech on the Internet defined as not being an election advertisement’.

It’s possibly ironic (or ridiculous) that Moore will probably soon re-launch his website as a blog and the Electoral Commission will be unable to touch him.

Political party websites not prosecuted

It is perhaps another sign of the ridiculousness of the EFA that political party websites do not necessarily need to have authorisation. The Electoral Commission spokesperson Peter Northcote says that political party websites would not necessarily fall within the definition of an election advertisement unless asking for votes. ‘If you look at the Labour site, it’s not shouting ‘vote for us’. It’s a corporate website.’ To that end, the Electoral Commission has not yet scrutinised the websites of political parties, choosing to prioritise shutting down sites such as dontvotelabour.org.nz According to the NZ Herald, all but one of the political party websites do not currently carry the details of who has authorised the sites and where they live.

Northcote says that the Commission is unable to say exactly when the line is crossed when a political party website becomes an election advertisement, and thus ‘It’s one of a number of the greyer online areas that we are seeking legal advice on’. See: Political party websites side-step election laws

This all makes a mockery of state intervention into politics and ePolitics. Not surprisingly, the NZ Herald has blasted the shutting down of the website in an editorial – see: Absurdity of vigilance already felt. The Herald comments:

Is this going to be the story of the year: constant vigilance of any form of public speech to ensure it complies with all 148 clauses of the act? How absurd that New Zealanders can no longer make a political statement in an election year without satisfying a welter of petty regulation.

The newspaper also raises the point that the defenders of political finance reform constantly made the argument that the issue wasn’t about free speech, but about restricting those who wanted to spend ‘big money’: ‘When the Herald first raised its voice against this prospect, some said we overstated the threat to free speech. The financial restrictions applied only to expensive speech’. This event clearly now puts paid to that dishonest argument. After all, the Moore website is not some expensive election advertisement – Moore says it’s only cost him about $50.

The Herald points out that although the ‘Justice Minister expects the commission to “use common sense”’ when dealing with situations such as ePolitics, ‘but how is it supposed to know whether anonymity on the web is within the law’s tolerance?’ The paper says that ‘Those who delight in absurdity could have a field day from now until the election’.

Should rightwingers be defended?

So who is Andrew Moore and what are his politics? He’s a Christchurch Act party member. Does this therefore mean that the left shouldn’t defend his right to publish his views on the web? No. Moore might have a lot of objectionable politics, but the clampdown on him by the EFA-mandated Electoral Commission should obviously still be opposed.

It’s also worth pointing out that Moore has been relatively upfront about his membership of the Act party. And Ironically, for the vast majority of people that might view his website, this information is probably a lot more useful and important than knowing where he lives.

But did Moore set up his website to deliberately flout the EFA? Obviously he did. But that doesn’t make any difference. It’s good to see him testing the EFA and the Electoral Commission. His experiment has been very instructive. And regardless of his intentions, he’s still been the victim of an anti-democratic piece of legislation. Similarly, if a trade union set out to flaunt an anti-democratic and anti-union element of the Employment Relations Act (such as its prohibitions on many types of strike activity), this would also be something that the left should support.

For a different view on all this, try No Right Turn’s blog post entitled A martyr in his own mind. This argues that the requirements for including your name and address are ‘not onerous’, and Moore has ‘chosen to play the martyr’, and ‘This is not something anyone should have any sympathy for’.

NZ Listener: Money doesn’t talk.

by David W Young

Big business has no reason to cross the government’s palm with silver.

A curious feature of the never-ending debate about the Electoral Finance Act is the depth of concern some people have about the influence of big business on politics. The act’s defenders apparently believe there is a real risk that corporate New Zealand could use its deep pockets to hijack the political process. This fear is odd. It certainly over-estimates the influence that businesses have on politics, and probably exaggerates their interest in changing an election outcome.

For most companies, it makes little sense to get out the chequebooks for politicians. In New Zealand, chief executives don’t have to pay money or lay on gifts to get face-to-face time with a political leader. It is a very inefficient way to get the policies you want, compared with employing lobbyists or public relations professionals, or calling the politicians yourself. It’s also an easy way to upset shareholders and staff: no matter how the cash is divvied up between the parties, someone is going to be unhappy.

The only real reason for a company to give money to politicians is a fairly boring one: the earnest desire to be a good corporate citizen. Buying carbon credits and building Habitats for Humanity have become much more popular and effective ways of feeling good.

Few listed companies make political donations these days. Telecom gave it up in 2006, shortly after government intervention in the sector saw its share value plummet. Then-chief executive Theresa Gattung had warned the government off regulation by invoking the potential loss of money to “mum and dad” shareholders, not by threatening to cut the rather meagre $50k donation and corporate box time.

Across the Tasman, free market think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs has pointed out that Australian businesses are putting less money into politics than they used to, because the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s effectively gave companies the playing field they wanted.

Simply put, big businesses don’t need to spend time in smoky back rooms plotting to overthrow hostile governments – they can move offshore more easily than ever before.

Last election, there were $3.2 million of declared donations over $10,000. As political scientist Bryce Edwards points out, this is a fraction of the money the parties get from the taxpayer through parliamentary funding. Still, it’s a fair whack. We’ll never know how much came from businesses, unions and wealthy individuals – but having spent a few years working for a political party that was big on fundraising, I’d say most came from the latter.

Advocates of the Electoral Finance Act point to these millions – and those spent by members of the Exclusive Brethren supporting National – as evidence that a law change was needed.

It would be hard to find a less competent bunch of political interferers than the Brethren. But even if they had got their act together, there’s little evidence that big money can sway an election result in any serious way.

In the United States, presidential candidates need tens of millions of dollars just to be taken seriously. Even there, however, economist Steven Levitt finds that money doesn’t buy victory. Levitt has discovered that a winning candidate can cut campaign spending by half and his or her vote will drop by only one percent. Similarly, a loser can double it and his or her vote will climb by only one percent.

In New Zealand, the Act Party has historically been the richest party after Labour and National, but hardly the most successful. Some of the big business lobby groups themselves have plenty of cash but low public esteem.

Businesses do have sway, but it doesn’t come through their wallets. They participate in business confidence surveys to which pundits and the government are sensitively attuned. Business leaders serve on public boards. Chief executives are regularly consulted by the main political parties. Lobby groups participate behind the scenes on policy formation.

Despite efforts by several parties, small business owners have never voted as a bloc. There are enough of them to ensure that if any party could come up with the right policy prescription to woo them in 2008, business really could have an impressive amount of influence on politics.

Mike Moore: Repeal electoral act … that’s progress.

5:00AM Thursday January 31, 2008
By Mike Moore

 

Dissent is the lifeblood and oxygen of progressive politics. It always has been.

We social democrats trace our history of dissent back through the centuries as we wrung concessions out of the powerful and privileged.

The Magna Carta, the glorious revolution in Britain when it was decided that ordinary men and women had rights, that the monarch was accountable to the law, not above it, and had to seek the approval of Parliament to take and spend the people’s money, makes up this progressive history.

We have our martyrs and heroes. The Levellers, Chartists, all who fought for a more equal, open society and system, are our ancestors.

The Parliamentary Act of Tolerance, to allow freedom of religion, the progressive widening of the franchise to give more people power to vote, eventually women, made British liberal/labour thinking gravitate towards parliamentary action.

Democracy gives the people power. The European radical tradition, which did not have a parliamentary outlet, caused revolutionary reaction.

Trade unions were at the forefront of seeking social justice through parliamentary reform, the right to collectively bargain, the right to strike, struggles fought and still being fought for generations. Progressives have an anti-authoritarian genetic make-up.

Progressive political thinking did not begin with the election of the first Labour Government, or even the progressive liberal governments earlier. There were many Australian-born ministers in the first NZ Labour Cabinet – dissenters, trade unionists, who were hounded out of Australia.

Dissenters throughout history have had a strong, religious backbone. The right to believe, to worship how you wanted, motivated great progressive, and not so progressive, movements.

The Enlightenment was about freedom of religions and freedom from religion. If we were all God’s children, surely then we were equal in His eyes and should be equal under the law. The king did not have divine rights to rule.

Christianity played a huge role in the beliefs of early Labour, we owed more to Methodism than to Marx. Branches of my union, the Printers Union, were called ‘chapels’; the father of the chapel, even in my day, was the chairman of the union branch.

Our first Labour Prime Minister, Savage, was a strong Catholic; Nash, a lay preacher; Nordmeyer a Presbyterian Minister; Kirk a young Salvation Army member; and Lange, initially a devout Methodist. Labour’s relationship with the Ratana Church was the key to holding power in Maoridom for generations.

Early New Zealand Labour personalities dissented. Many went to prison for their principles. Paddy Webb, later a minister, was stripped of his parliamentary seat and lost his civil rights for 10 years because of his opposition to conscription during World War I.

Tim Armstrong, Bob Semple and Peter Fraser were jailed for seditious behaviour. Walter Nash was fined for importing seditious material. That’s two future Labour Prime Ministers with criminal convictions.

Anti-sedition laws in New Zealand were extended by the 1920 War Continuance Act (Sedition) to include the promotion of class warfare. Teachers had to swear oaths of allegiance to weed out those who might have undesirable political opinions.

We didn’t close down dissent. It was the Conservatives who famously jammed a radio station in the 1930s. During the 1951 waterfront dispute, a National Government used wartime legislation, still on the books, to censor the media and make it an offence to assist those declared by law to be strikers.

Years after I was elected to Parliament, I read an interview with my mother who told the story of delivering leaflets supporting the workers at night with me in a pram covered with illegal leaflets. As a boy, I delivered ‘No Maoris, No Tour’ leaflets. More recently we saw splendid dissent during the anti-Vietnam War, anti-nuclear and the anti-apartheid struggle. One current minister was ejected physically from the parliamentary gallery for protesting against the extension of the powers of the Security Intelligence Service.

This short history of democratic Labour and dissent is to remind people of Labour’s traditions. Why and how we stand on the shoulders of others in our historic commitment to human rights; freedom at home and abroad.

Early Labour took unpopular, minority stands, attacking the Government of the day for their imperialist slaughter of Samoans in an early independence uprising. These are the historic planks that made our platform.

Why then the problem now with Christians? Is it because we don’t approve of their brand of Christianity?

Why then this historic blunder of the Electoral Finance Act, which contradicts this fine tradition?

Why the silence of the lambs in the civil rights movement who so publicly condemned me when I suggested we should merge tax and social benefit numbers to prevent fraud?

Geoffrey Palmer was at his thundering best when he attacked Muldoon for his retrospective and fast-track legislation, and for using SIS files on opponents.

There’s a cost to disagreeing, as I found when I published an article comparing all this to Muldoonism. The response was furious and focused. Civil Rights groups have been eerily silent. The Human Rights Commissioner, bravely and almost alone, has spoken out.

Is it all a cock-up or a conspiracy that we have enacted such a repressive, unworkable, flawed law to cover election year activists?

Bit of both. Traumatised by the Brethren, who the Government believed were prepared to use private detectives to check out family members and spend millions, the Government has used the hammer of the state to smash a few nutters.

We are all affected by the heavy-handed response. The consequence has been legislation that will be tested in court and be found to be unworkable. Good.

Why should you have to register with the state if you want to oppose or support a political party, or promote public policy? Lawyers have suggested that cartoonists who seek to persuade readers could be covered, even theatre.

You may have to ask permission of a candidate to email or write a letter in their support, but not if you rubbish them. A private poster on your own wall is covered – is graffiti?

Someone could set up a free giveaway paper, lose a million dollars, go broke, and that’s not covered. Even MPs who voted for the legislation can’t work out how to spend their own electorate allowances.

People are going to test this law, perhaps get a terminally-ill person in a hospice to be an agent. A heroic defence was suggested, that is the law of common sense. Unique in world jurisprudence – tell that to the judge or electoral commissioner who closed down an anti-Government webpage. The blogger wouldn’t give his address because he lived at home and might upset mom. Is this silly or sinister? Both.

My plea to the party I love is to just repeal the act. Accept it’s wrong in substance and principle before it hurts us further and does the exact opposite of what’s intended by encouraging big money to circumvent this law. J’Accuse.

Let’s hope NZ is not heading further along this way in 2008?

Political Thought Crime – Canadian style.

http://ezralevant.com/

Watch a series of videos as lawyer and publisher Ezra Levant builds a brilliant defence of personal and political freedom, whilst being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for choosing to publish the “Mohammad” cartoons. Look also for the potential and actual parallels to our own Electoral Finance Act.

Mike Moore: Banana republic risk, without the bananas.

5:00AM Tuesday January 15, 2008
By Mike Moore

 

Related nzherald links:

• John Armstrong: Moore choosing wrong time for republic debate

New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and the issue of becoming a republic will soon be on the political agenda. Here’s why – and why it’s dangerous.

There’s almost a consensus between the parties on Australia becoming a republic. It will be a good diversion for New Zealand politicians, ironically not in a fit of homegrown nationalism, but meekly following an Australian fashion and proving the opposite of independence. And a dependence on others’ moods.

The only New Zealand politician of substance who has spoken up for a republic was Jim Bolger, who did so after it became an issue in Australia – and a few weeks after a visit by Australian republican Prime Minister Paul Keating.

It was natural that most newly independent countries asserted their independence by declaring themselves free of imperial foreign crowns. New Zealand, Australia and Canada were different.

We did not, except for some indigenous people, see the British system as tyrannical. We were colonised later than most places and we sought the rights of Englishmen and all that British democracy and common law had evolved into.

The Crown was seen as the protector of Maori rights and we still speak of settlements as being between the Crown and Maori. Curiously, it took our Parliament until 1947 to finally ratify the Statute of Westminster passed by the British in 1931 granting us complete independence.

This important step was not celebrated as some historic act of separation or independence, just a natural evolution.

Why could further change be dangerous? Because it is most likely to be done in a fit of populism and will represent ad hoc change.

Governments have the right to introduce GST or not, nationalise or privatise. But issues of constitutional consequence, once made, are difficult to unmake.

We abolished our rights of appeal to the Privy Council without much debate. We rejected first-past-the-post in a public fit of disgust because politicians seemed out of control.

The promise of another referendum on the future of MMP has not eventuated. A few politicians want to abolish the Maori seats and the Treaty of Waitangi. Others want the Treaty to be our constitution.

It’s not good enough to pass laws saying the law should take into account the principles of the treaty without defining what they are. The treaty is vital – if we didn’t have one we would have to invent it.

But who, when, and how was it decided that we’re now a bicultural society, not a multicultural nation? The evidence before our eyes tells us we are a land of many cultures.

An old multi-party consensus on issues such as electoral finance laws has recently been broken. Our political memories did not begin in 1840. We also draw on centuries of experiences before then.

No one came to New Zealand without a memory. Our Parliament still refers to Speaker’s rulings based on Westminster decisions dating back hundreds of years, and so do our courts. We have much to be proud of – in a short time (150 years) we’ve gone from a violent, poor, tribal society to a nation in the front ranks in terms of living standards and democratic rights. I once opposed having a constitution because of our European traditions and enlightenment values, which we reject at our peril. Now I’m for change because we are eroding these age-old principles.

The present direction is visionless, dangerously ad hoc, short-term, and confusing. Democracy is about who runs the country. A constitution is about the limits of Government.

Constitutional change ought not to be rushed or hurried, and should only be entered into after deliberate, detailed and sober consideration, consultation and reflection.

My last act in Parliament was to try to get to a parliamentary select committee a very detailed private bill on a process that would move us towards a common consensus-based constitutional re-arrangement. At the time, I thought this would take about five years.

The process should not be about experimentation, nor an act of defiance, or a bill of grievances. It should be a considered, binding, evolutionary process of what’s worked well so far. The process is almost as important as the result.

My bill suggested a staggered, benchmarked roadmap to arrive at a consensus on our constitutional arrangements. First, a leadership council of all the leaders of the political parties in Parliament would appoint, by consensus, an eminent persons group of respected New Zealanders, which would consult, listen and promote discussion on whether New Zealand should have a written constitution, or not.

If we are to be a republic, on which model – the US, French, Irish, or German model? There is a substantial difference.

An elected president could mean the end of our parliamentary system by establishing a potentially conflicting position of great power, but perhaps a congressional system has virtues. One attraction of the present system, a Queen or Governor General, is not the power they have but the power and prestige they deny others.

This report should also consider MMP and alternatives, the vital status of our most important historic agreement, the Treaty of Waitangi, and our special constitutional arrangements with the Pacific.

Thus, after some years of consideration, the eminent persons report would be tabled at a constitutional convention, with most delegates elected at a general election but with a representative number of elected members of our Parliament included. And also non-voting eminent people and observers from nations whose destinies we share. Making no change is an option if the case for change is not compelling.

I modelled much of this process on the Australian Constitutional Convention which I attended. Interestingly, I was the only New Zealand politician there. All previous such conventions were attended officially by New Zealand ministers.

If there is agreement at my proposed convention, the final decision must rest with the people through a referendum. The South Africans built a consensus around their constitution which, in its preamble clause says:

“We, the people of South Africa, honour those who have suffered for justice and freedom, respect those who have worked on our land to build and develop our country, and believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.”

New Zealand’s system is not in a desperate state of disrepute or disrepair – it’s not broken. But it could be further damaged by incremental changes.

This will be very difficult to navigate and avoid capture by entrenched interests. But we can, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “still appeal to the better angels of our nature”.

Alas, without a formal process, we risk becoming a “banana republic” – without the bananas.

* Mike Moore is a former Labour Prime Minister and Director-General of the World Trade Organisation.

Kenya: test case for African democracy.

Martyn Drakard | Friday, 11 January 2008

Will Mwai Kibaki and his supporters allow their country’s achievements to go up in smoke?

Kenya’s post-election violence and the subsequent humanitarian disaster have grabbed world headlines for almost two weeks. It was, after all, the Christmas holiday season and, apart from events in Pakistan, not a lot was happening. Then again, Nairobi is the vibrant communications hub for this part of Africa, which has facilitated excellent coverage of events. Most importantly, however, Kenya had been considered a focal point of peace and stability in the region and, it was hoped, a democracy in which the president could be voted out of power — and go.Polls showed that, although ruling president Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga were neck and neck in the presidential race, Odinga was the favourite. Yet, if Kibaki lost, it would be the first time in this part of Africa that an incumbent head of state had been voted out of power by the opposition. Political analysts in the West and the rest of Africa waited with bated breath.

Kenya is seen as being ahead of the rest of Africa in many ways, having had 45 years of comparative peace, and yet its vital example could be lost.

The rest is known. There is abundant evidence to show the presidential poll was rigged. Foreign diplomats have even said as much. As soon as signs of foul play were suspected, parts of the country erupted in violence, which quickly spread through the whole country except for the home area of the president and his trusted men, and that of the newly-appointed vice-president, Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka. The official number of dead is given as 600, though the final figure will be much higher. At least 250,000 people are displaced, some 10,000 of them sheltering in the Catholic cathedral compound of Eldoret, a multi-ethnic farming area and home to many Kikuyu settlers. Thousands from the sprawling Nairobi slums are camped in parks and other open spaces waiting for food and medical supplies. The suffering of the displaced is somewhat mitigated by the dry, hot January weather.

The media have been asking: is this another African genocide? Since Rwanda’s one hundred days of slaughter in 1994, it is easy to label outbursts like this “tribal war” or “ethnic cleansing”. These are harmful stereotypes. Rwanda’s case was very different: 99 per cent of the population consisted of two tribes — the majority Hutu and the minority Tutsi, the latter culturally dominant thanks to the Belgian colonisers and resented by the Hutu. Hate messages broadcast over time prepared the way for massacre. Besides, Rwanda was poor and backward, and of no strategic importance to the super-powers.

Kenya has some 40 tribes, a dozen of them quite large. The different groups have spread out due to the high birth rate and intermarriage is becoming ever more common. The population is generally well educated and the younger generations less likely to think of themselves in tribal terms. Tribal differences, perceptions and prejudices do exist, as happens between any two European nations you can name, but it is unlikely the current troubles will turn into a full-scale civil war.

Why has much of the country reacted so forcefully, making thousands of families of the “winning” Kikuyu side flee for dear life? People wanted a change; instead, they were short-changed. They saw victory within their grasp, only to have it stolen from them brazenly and in broad daylight. The people who stole their victory were the very same ones they had become increasingly unhappy with, and who proceeded to give their theft the appearance of spotless legality.

Dissatisfaction had been simmering, stoked by a litany grievances: unfulfilled electoral promises; unpunished instances of grand larceny and corruption on a monumental scale; huge social problems unaddressed, except by the faith-based groups and some more reliable NGOs; a worsening of poverty in the urban slums and the poorer rural areas, despite the touted 6 per cent annual GDP increase; official arrogance and rulers quite out of touch with the needs of the ordinary man, woman and child. Father Daniele Moschetti, a Comboni missionary who has worked for 15 years in Korogocho, one of Nairobi’s toughest slums, has called it the “war of the poor”. The writer-journalist, Michela Wrong, agrees that rather than an ethnic clash, it is privilege opposed to oppression, the rich-poor divide. 

Kenya is strategically important — to the United States, for example, in its fight against al-Qaeda. It has good communications, a robust economy and good relations with East, West and the rest of Africa. The coastal port of Mombasa is the gateway for all goods moving into the land-locked countries of the interior, such as Uganda, southern Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, and eastern Congo. Oil has been discovered in western Uganda; eastern Congo is mineral-rich. Kenya cannot be allowed to go up in flames.

This may explain why four past African presidents, Chissano (Mozambique), Mkapa (Tanzania), Kaunda (Zambia), and Masire (Botswana) have been in the country seeing the current situation for themselves and speaking with political leaders. The chairman of the African Union, President John Kofuor of Ghana, has spoken to Kibaki and Odinga, separately, and not together, as he had hoped. The US sent in their top African diplomat, Jendayi Frazer. This flurry of diplomatic activity is in stark contrast to what happened in Rwanda, where everyone was intent on saving his own skin.

Kenya’s case is crucial for Africa. If Kibaki’s regime digs in its heels and gets away with it, there will be more justification for other African presidents to follow suit. Kenya is seen as being ahead of the rest of Africa in many ways, having had 45 years of comparative peace, and yet its vital example could be lost. That is why younger Kikuyus, the tribesmen of Kibaki, those who are doing well for themselves, have urged him to “rethink his position”. They blame him for turning the rest of the country against their ethnic group. This split in the ranks is in itself an interesting development.

Politically the country is at an impasse. Kibaki refuses to step down. The opposition will not recognize him as president. Attitudes have hardened. It is only fair there should be a re-run of the presidential election, preferably once tempers have cooled, but with the intransigent lieutenants Kibaki has surrounded himself with, this will be little short of a miracle.

Now is a critical, delicate moment in the history of Kenya, and for the future of democracy in Africa.

Martyn Drakard writes from Kampala, Uganda.

Millionaire in campaign against ‘Soviet’ law.

5:00AM Friday January 11, 2008
By Claire Trevett 

Michael Horton. Photo / Herald on Sunday

Democracy under attack

• Political party websites side-step election laws
• Editorial: Absurdity of vigilance already felt

Auckland millionaire and former Herald publisher Michael Horton has applied to register as a “third party” so he can campaign against new electoral laws that he says leave free speech in an election year to be decided by a “Soviet Union-style commissar”.

Mr Horton, 70, has applied to the Electoral Commission to be listed as a third party, which will allow him to spend up to $120,000 on his plans to campaign for the repeal of controversial new electoral laws.

Mr Horton was managing director of Wilson & Horton when the family-controlled company owned the Herald prior to 1996. His son, Matthew Horton, who owns Horton Media, will be his financial agent.

Mr Horton said he had previously donated to the National Party and was associated with the party at grass-roots level in Epsom.

However, he was prompted into more direct political activism for 2008 by the new Electoral Finance Act, which he said was the “nationalisation of free speech”.

“The act requires someone at some stage to have to censor speech and expressed opinion, because they decide whether something is political or it isn’t,” he said.

“We are going to have a bit of a Soviet Union-style political commissar, an institution sitting there judging whether something is political or not. Do we really want to be having an official Government censor who for one year decides what is acceptable and what is not?”

The law, which was passed last month, allows third parties to spend up to $120,000 on “election advertising” in an election year, and to register if spending more than $12,000.

Mr Horton said he had not yet developed a plan for his $120,000 campaign, but it was unlikely to be an attack on any political party, although he said Labour had “taken collective leave of its senses over this issue”.

“I live in harmony with both parties. What I’m against is the act. I think the act must be repealed, so whoever promises that, I suppose, will be worthy of my support.”

Mr Horton is the third person to apply to be a third party and is expecting criticism of his stance from those who support the law.

“I’ve been threatening the family I’m going to have an armband made. Instead of the Star of David, which the poor Jews had to wear, I’m going to have a little armband which says, ‘Registered third party’.”

While some of the law’s opponents, such as Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt, have threatened to ignore or deliberately break the new law, Mr Horton did not intend to follow suit.

“I expect to spend up to the limit, but I certainly will operate within the law, not outside it.

“I don’t believe in that. I’m not interested in going to jail at the age of 70,” Mr Horton said.

The National Party has already vowed to repeal the law, which it strongly opposed, with the Maori Party, Act and, at the final reading, United Future.

Yesterday the National Party moved to distance itself from all third parties, in a bid to avoid a possible repeat of the Exclusive Brethren controversy that dogged it in the 2005 election.

Deputy leader Bill English yesterday issued a statement saying the party would not endorse or authorise any anti-Government third party campaigns.

He also released an email the party received which advised of plans for a “Give NZ a fair go” campaign attacking the Labour Government.

Mr English said National had made it clear to the sender that National would not endorse the campaign, or any other attack campaigns.

He said it was up to individuals and groups to decide whether to take any action and while the party had opposed the Electoral Finance Act as anti-democratic, its advice to third parties was to seek advice and operate within the law.

In 2005, National came under attack after the party initially denied knowledge of the $1 million campaign, before its then leader, Don Brash, admitted meeting leaders of the Exclusive Brethren.

The links with the reclusive Christian group outlined in Nicky Hager’s book, The Hollow Men, were regarded as contributing to Dr Brash’s departure from politics soon after.

* MICHAEL HORTON …

* Was managing director of Wilson & Horton, the family-controlled firm that owned the NZ Herald until a takeover in 1996. It also owned several provincial newspapers.

* Head of the Horton family, which the NBR Rich List estimates to be worth $190 million.

* Chairman of his son’s commercial printing and publishing company, Horton Media.

* Married to Rosemary Horton, philanthropist and vice chair of the Starship Foundation.

* Son Matthew Horton is sole shareholder of Horton Media, which also does business in Australia, and part-owner of the Truth newspaper.

* Was one of the initial complainants to the Securities Commission about the sale of TranzRail shares, which he estimated lost him about $200,000. David Richwhite and Sir Michael Fay have since paid $20 million to settle the insider trading case but without admitting guilt.

John Minto on Poverty & Democracy – John Minto: Property rights often mean little, if anything, to people in poverty.

5:00AM Thursday January 10, 2008
By John Minto

 

Mike Moore brings an interesting perspective to the issues of democracy and poverty in his recent contribution to the Herald. He says that without secure property rights poverty will endure.

This seems to be the main focus of a high-level UN commission, of which he is a member, which is inquiring into this question. Moore says he hopes the commission’s work will help us rethink poverty.

The commission is chaired by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, and includes former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Mike Moore describes these as outstanding individuals but given its makeup it is clear this commission will be able to tell us more about how to create poverty than alleviate it.

The US has the highest levels of poverty in the Western world (more than 30 million) despite one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Why would this be?

Last year in the US the increase in income of the top 1 per cent of income earners was greater than the entire income of the bottom 20 per cent of the population. What this staggering statistic means is that the bottom 20 per cent of US citizens, all of whom live in poverty, could have had their incomes doubled if the wealthiest 1 per cent had simply forgone an increase in income last year.

Bringing up uncomfortable facts like these is described by the wealthy as the “politics of envy”. But no, it’s another of the seven deadly sins at work here via the “politics of greed”.

Moore himself brings to the commission New Zealand’s local experience in poverty creation. We have seen huge increases in poverty following policies introduced by the Labour governments of the 1980s, of which Moore was a Cabinet minister and briefly Prime Minister.

Despite all this, in a stream of barbecue-and-beer wisdom, Moore has come to the conclusion that it is the absence of enforceable property rights that lies at the heart of poverty. This has done no good for those living in poverty in the US or New Zealand but apparently he believes it will do wonders to drive poverty from developing countries.

The opposite is true. Property rights are there to benefit the wealthy and the middle class. They mean much less, if anything, to people in poverty.

Mike Moore is on a better trail pointing to the importance of true democracy as the way out of poverty. But it won’t come from the pale imitation we have here in New Zealand or in the US where democracy seems to involve little more than five minutes in the ballot box every three years to decide whose turn it is to run the free-market economy.

True democracy involves people in decision-making in all parts of their lives. Again Moore could draw on his personal experience. The free-market polices Labour forced on the country in an undemocratic policy blitzkrieg in the 1980s have been well documented as has the ensuing descent into poverty of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders.

It’s worth remembering that democratic rights, to the extent we have them, were never granted freely to anyone. People have only gained civil and political rights after bitter, violent struggles.

Moore has no excuse for peddling more myths about poverty. He’s done enough damage already.