Pubdate: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
Source: The Independent Business Weekly (New Zealand)
Contact:  PO Box 105-192 Auckland
Website: http//www.knowledge-basket.co.nz/theindependent/
Author: Chris Trotter

MPS ARE IN THE VAN OF MORAL LEADERSHIP... THE GUARD'S VAN

"It's a gross injustice, but hey, that's politics!" said Mita Ririnui, MP 
for Waiariki, chair of Labour's Maori caucus.

Is a high standard of ethical behaviour really too much to expect from our 
politicians? The answer, if we believe Mr Ririnui is "yes". His offhand 
dismissal of the case for Dover Samuels's reinstatement - valid ethically 
but untenable politically - reflects the widely held belief that "ethical 
politics" is an oxymoron.

Simon Carr - that speechwriter for prime ministers, inveterate gossip, and 
all-round bon vivant - put the case for the cynics in his 1997 monograph 
The Dark Art of Politics. "The purpose of politicians", he said, "is to get 
their fingers into the sockets of power, and get that rush of meaning, 
reassurance and pleasure that makes them feel most alive."

Politics as the pursuit, exercise, and retention of power, is a favourite 
theme of political journalists. In the finest tradition of Machiavelli 
(generally acknowledged as the first political philosopher to openly 
advocate divorcing ethics from politics) the political journalist dismisses 
as hopelessly naive anyone foolish enough to question the moral content of 
political judgements.

Metro Editor, Bill Ralston, for example, writing in the August 2000 edition 
of his magazine, had this to say about Helen Clark's dismissal of Dover 
Samuels. "It is not so much what he did or when he did it or how old the 
girl was; it is the fact he was caught out. Helen Clark correctly assessed 
the danger. Dover was trailing blood in the shark-infested political waters 
of parliament. To protect her government, Dover had to go. Ruthless, yes, 
but politically very wise."

It is precisely this sort of writing that fuels the popularly held belief 
that all politicians are bastards, and that politics is the exclusive 
playground of psychopaths, paranoiacs and congenital liars, a world, in 
short, no sane person would want to inhabit. All very well if the writer's 
purpose is to condemn the moral vacuity of the politically engaged, but 
this is far from the case. As Ralston's piece demonstrates, the ruthless 
amorality of our political leaders is presented as something both thrilling 
and terrifying like a public execution. It is politics as pornography 
sinful but fun.

How then should we read the recent comments of Alliance Leader, Jim 
Anderton, in relation to New Zealand's Olympic equestrian, Mark Todd? Was 
his outrage at the New Zealand Olympic Committee's refusal to require Todd 
to issue a public denial of the lurid allegations levelled against him in 
Britain's Sunday Mirror serious, or was it just spin? The fact is that 
Anderton was perfectly serious in his objections, and that, for once, we 
were treated to the sight of a politician condemning the public for its 
lack of moral fibre - its unwillingness to take an ethical stand.

Interestingly, the public - and the NZ Olympic Committee - remained unmoved 
by Mr Anderton's moral exhortations. In a phone-in poll conducted by the 
Holmes programme, two thirds of the respondents reiterated their 
unwillingness to condemn Mr Todd for his alleged drug-taking and 
extra-marital hi-jinks. (Even more interestingly, a similar percentage of 
Holmes viewers believe Helen Clark should reinstate Dover Samuels.)

This public indifference to the misdemeanours of sex, drugs and 
(presumably) rock-and-roll, bodes ill for Mr Anderton's other great moral 
obsession of the moment, cannabis law reform. Reflecting the conservatism 
of the Alliance's mostly elderly membership (and much to the disappointment 
of its younger, more active, members) Mr Anderton has announced that he 
will personally oppose any moves in the direction of decriminalising marijuana.

While conceding that the majority of his caucus colleagues take a more 
liberal view of the issue, and acknowledging that the matter is to be 
decided on a "conscience vote", Mr Anderton cannot escape the fact that his 
very public opposition to cannabis law reform has had a chilling effect on 
the whole decriminalisation campaign.

The National Party is unwilling to offer anything more than diversion for 
those found guilty of simple possession of cannabis (and only for the first 
offence). The ACT Party, in spite of its professed libertarianism, has yet 
to make up its mind, although a close reading of Stephen Franks' 
brilliantly Jesuitical discussion paper on the subject, suggests that he 
and his colleagues will be voting for prohibition. Labour goes both ways on 
decriminalisationits social conservatives making common cause with soul 
mates in the Alliance, National, ACT, NZ First and United; its liberals 
linking with the Greens.

With the resinous Mr Nandor Tanczos in their ranks, most people would 
assume that the Green Party was ready and rearing to go on the cannabis 
issue. In this case, however, most people would be wrong. In a series of 
answers to written questions, submitted by National's Wyatt Creech, to the 
Ministers of Youth Affairs, Justice, Maori Affairs, Police, and Health, it 
is made abundantly clear that the Green Party has taken practically no 
meaningful political steps in the direction of decriminalising cannabis.

Nandor Tanczos has used the Official Information Act to obtain copies of 
two Australian briefing papers on the cannabis laws, but, according to 
Justice Minister, Phil Goff"Apart from meetings with various ministerial 
colleagues, I have had no meeting with members of other political parties 
represented in Parliament in relation to the proposed review of cannabis 
law." Police Minister, George Hawkins, tells a similar story"I have 
attended two meetings of the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy, on April 
17th and 13th June respectively 85 Apart from my participation at these 
meetings, I have not met with, or discussed the proposed review of the 
legal status of cannabis, with members of other political parties." Only 
the Health Minister, Annette King, was able to confirm "several informal 
discussions with Nandor Tanczos, Sue Kedgley and Jeanette Fitzsimons of the 
Green Party at various times on the proposed review of the cannabis law."

Could it be that the Greens, whose presence in Parliament is due, in no 
small measure, to what might be called "The Stoner Vote", are suffering 
from cold feet over the cannabis issue? Nine months would seem ample time 
in which to have met with Government Ministers, prepared submissions, and 
drafted a Private Members Bill. But, aside from an unspecified number of 
"informal discussions" with Annette King, little progress appears to have 
been made.

If the Greens have gone cold on cannabis law reform, then the group chiefly 
responsible for cooling their reformist ardour must surely be the NZ 
Secondary School Principals Association. It was the determination of a 
Christchurch headmaster to keep Nandor Tanczos away from his pupils that 
set in motion a groundswell of opposition to the decriminalisation of 
cannabis among the SSPA. Their public statements concerning the negative 
effects of cannabis upon teenagers brought the Green Party's reform 
juggernaut to a shuddering halt. Almost overnight, Nandor went from being 
every editor's pin-up boy, to persona no grata in the nation's schoolyards.

The views of school principals, by virtue of their ability to reach into 
the households of hundreds of voters, have always secured the undivided 
attention of politicians, and the greens have proved no exception.

Here, perhaps, lies the answer to the existence or otherwise of ethical 
politics. Since ethical standards are socially constructed, their effect 
can only ever be gauged in a social context. It is, therefore, pointless to 
pass judgement on individual politicians. As Simon Carr puts it in his 
fifth Law of Darkness"Pay no attention to what politicians say pay close 
attention to what they do."

And, when judging political action, look always for the influence of that 
most powerful of lobby groups, the voting public. In a democracy, the 
political ethics carrying the biggest stick may just be your own.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart