A FOUR YEAR TERM WILL ONLY ENTRENCH THE STATUS QUO

Our participation in the political process is largely confined to voting every three years. Now, the political establishment wants to reduce that already minimal participation to once very four years. That's a good deal?


WE LIVE in a country where the two 'major' political parties, Labour and National, are each struggling to command the support of a third of the electorate that continues to vote. In recent days, the Acting Prime Minister has been the leader of a party with less than ten percent popular support. Yet, despite the fact that our parliamentary parties have dwindling support within the community, they are all very keen to have the opportunity to stay in government for four years rather than three as the 'representatives of the people'

There hasn't been a sudden groundswell of support for a four-year term. The people haven't been out on the streets demanding that politicians get an extra year in office. The people have been demonstrating about the dire state of the health system but no-one's been out on the streets chanting '1, 2,3,4. what do we want? A four-year term!'

Indeed, the push for a four-year term has come from within the political establishment itself; legislation to extend the parliamentary term, subject to a referendum, was part of the coalition deal National made with Act and NZ First.

Prime Minister Chris Luxon says he personally supports a four-year term because 'it gives governments more time to get things done'. Given that the New Zealand working class has been under the cosh of neoliberal governments for the past four decades, do we really want to give the political representatives of capital more time in office to screw us even harder?

We live in a country where corporate interests have captured the political system and the parliamentary parties are more disconnected from the mass of the population than ever before. That's why some 800,000 folk consistently do not vote in general elections.

Over four decades of neoliberal rule has taught people that there is no possibility of significant participation in the processes of the government. Participation has been reduced to voting every three years and, even then, the system is so corrupt and so tilted in favour of the ruling class, that there is exactly zero chance that the status quo will ever be overturned. Now the political establishment want to further reduce people's already minimal participation in the political process to once every four years.  

It's more than surprising that the Green Party have indicated their support for this proposal, especially since co-leader Chloe Swarbrick wants to see the neoliberal status quo overturned. Unless there is a sudden and rapid overturning of the neoliberal status quo, a four-year term is more than likely to simply strengthen it further. 

In the light of the push for a four-year term, it's worth reflecting on the observation of U.S. socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that we risk democracy when we allow 'the continued sophisticated takeover of our democratic systems in order to turn them into undemocratic systems.' A four-year term might be convenient for the political elite, but it will only further entrench an already unresponsive and unrepresentative political system. 

.