Many people, myself included, thought that MMP would make for a more representative government and more democratic system. I think many of those have been disappointed. There is no perfect system including binding CIR. Every system has its pluses and minuses.

What I find disappointing is that none of the existing political parties are prepared to at least seriously look at alternatives like allowing some form of binding referenda on some stand alone issues that have normally been decided on a free vote or a conscience vote. Another alternative is the reestablishment of a second house as proposed by Muriel Newman.

http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=882

I have heard many arguments about the drawbacks of CIR. Many are valid. I attended a lecture be Richard Ekins, hosted by the Maxim Institute. The link to his paper is below.

A Government for the People: The value of representative democracy

http://www.maxim.org.nz/files/pdf/a_government_for_the_people.pdf

One of Ekins’ ideas is that politicians are honourable and wise and make decisions that are good for the country as a whole and do not just pander to militant pressure groups. If only he was right. I am sure most MPs go into Parliament with the best intentions and there are a few that are very trustworthy. Unfortunately, it does not take long for most to compromise their principles. It would not be easy to argue for legislation you do not genuinely believe in. However, this is necessary particularly in the larger parties.

Under FPP there was some rationale to allow conscience votes on such things as the anti-smacking legislation and lowering the drinking age. The theory was that MPs were answerable to their electorate. However, if an MP had a strong majority because the seat was a strong Labour or National seat the MP usually did not have much to worry about. It was a different story in marginal electorates. Under MMP half the MPs are only answerable to their party.

It would be good if some politicians responded to this topic on this blog. I would also like to see what Bob McCroskie, Colin Craig and Larry Baldock think on this issue. I have some problems with Baldock’s proposal. Amending legislation has the same problem as initiating it – the wording. I would like to see what has traditionally been decided by a conscience vote to have to be ratified by a binding referendum acting like a second house. If politicians knew their legislation had to pass a second hurdle they would likely take submissions to a select committee more seriously.

I have seen a convincing argument which says that an absolute monarchy would be a lesser evil than democracy. It took me a while to get my head around that one! I’ve quoted the argument here:

http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-problem-with-democracy-part-one/

http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/democracy-is-dictatorship-a-response-to-bob-mccoskries-letter/
Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Right to silence under threat

Who’s talking about an absence of a structure of governance?

“It is the devolution of direct democracy to a limited power structure that allows democracy to work.”

As I said, direct democracy, like any other form of governance, needs systems and a structure to make it work. Direct democracy doesn’t mean anarchy, you still have people appointed to manage governments business.

I think you will find history shows that as soon as there is a power vacuum people turn into a feral mob. It is the devolution of direct democracy to a limited power structure that allows democracy to work.