A constitution but...

Not PC's excellent post reminding us that government needs to be restrained by a constitution reminds me also about my wariness of the republican movement and those who talk simply about such things. Arguing about a republic and a written constitution is a bit more than simply saying it's a good idea - you have to know what the purpose of the constitution is for.

Simply codifying convention would be virtually meaningless. A constitution is a statement about the role of the state and the limits of the role of the state, and what freedoms and rights the state guarantees to its citizens. In New Zealand there are a handful of wildly disparate views of this. Think of those who, like followers of a faith, want to include the Treaty of Waitangi, assuming somehow that this will do something about the state other than accentuate ethnic division. Others will see it as a chance to enshrine not rights against people doing things to other people, but in favour of the state doing things for people. Put the Greens, Maori Party, Labour, NZ First, National and Libertarianz in the same room and you'll get very different answers - most fundamentally conflicting.

You see, this is not something that should be left to politically appointed commissions or groups of nodding heads from people who follow the same vision. It needs to be evolutionary, and indeed until politicians start respecting property rights and individual freedoms more widely, a constitution would merely entrench nanny state.

So for now, the matter of shackling the state should be a point of debate and discussion. I wouldn't give anyone on the left a chance to ever start creating a constitution worth wiping my arse on. A constitution should be about two things: What the state can't take do, and the creation, maintenance and checks and balances on that state. Unfortunately, with a Prime Minister who declares "the state is sovereign", and around five political parties happy to keep her in power, one way or another, precious little evidence of the former exists in the minds of the majority of existing MPs.

Archibishop of Canterbury no great supporter Western civilisation

According to the Sunday Times, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has said that the US wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.

Interviewed by a British Muslim magazine, he criticises Western civilisation saying "Our modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul".

Continuing he says "If the soul is, to give the most minimal definition, that dimension of us which is most fundamentally in conscious relation with the Creator, then those things which speed us up and harden us are going to get in the way of the soul. We don’t know how to talk about it any longer but it is language that we still reach for." In short, it appears to be something about the pace of life getting in the way of religion. Hmmm. He doesn't seem shy about spending the fruits of hard work though.

He also says "The more our education system is dominated by functionalism, skills, productivity, and the more our whole society is determined by that kind of mythology, the harder it is for the religious voice to be heard. There is a real abrasion between lots of the forms of modernity and religion". He has a point about education being vocational not educational, but to claim that work is a mythology given HIS job as a professional proponent of mythology, is a joke. He is right there is abrasion between modernity and religion - but I would say it is reason and religion.

Meanwhile while saying that the Muslims world must acknowledge that its "political solutions were not the most impressive" we commends praying five times a day. He calls for more engagement between communities, fine in its own right, but also to, in his words "help Muslims see that "not everything about the West is destructive, secular and undermining of virtue."

Not everything no, he isn't exactly a defender of it is he?

Ah to end the links between the church and state completely!

Zimbabwe's slide to horror, as Ian Smith dies

The latest movement by Mugabe's kleptocracy is nationalisation, without compensation, of the country's mines. According to The Times, the largest mining company, ironically, is Zimplats, a subsidiary of South Africa's Impala Platinum - reaping the rewards of the ANC government's appeasement and support for Mugabe. Also facing this hteft is Rio Tinto. Of course, the appropriate response by both should be to get their workers to install explosives in the mines and blow them up. Short of sending their own mercenaries in to defend their property against Mugabe's regime, there is no alternative.

Meanwhile, Rhodesia's last leader - Ian Smith, has died in Cape Town. Mugabe's regime loathed him, in fact back when Chris Laidlaw was being NZ's sycophant to the regime Mugabe expelled Smith from the Parliament at Harare. Smith is largely seen as an unrepentant racist, who wanted to move from Empire to white supremacist rule. Certainly the now infamous acronym UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) for Rhodesia was universally condemned. Smith saw the results of decolonisation in some parts of Africa, particularly Belgian Congo, and was less than impressed. There was a strong desire for Rhodesia to gain independence, peacefully, and to retain a political system based upon what was inherited from the UK.

However, internally it was divided. The black majority saw independence elsewhere and was agitating for majority rule, the white minority feared being overwhelmed. At the time the Rhodesian Parliament's franchise for voting was dependent on income and education, much of the black population did not qualify and of those who did, many boycotted as Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo's resistance movements called on them to do so. When Smith became PM in 1964, he threw much of the black resistance movement in prison - and the next year undertook UDI. The UN Security Council condemned it, and sanctions were imposed on the newly independent Rhodesia. Smith believed it was necessary to maintain stability and had the backing of white-run South Africa, and the fascist president of Portugal, Antonio Salazar. The UK tried over many years to negotiate a way forward for Rhodesia to have universal suffrage. However, as South Africa started a process of detente with black Africa, and Salazar died allowing Portugal to decolonise and move towards liberal democracy, Rhodesia became increasingly isolated. South Africa no longer assisted in the fight against the communist black rebel movement. In 1976, Henry Kissinger told him he had to allow for universal suffrage within two years.

Smith tried, valiantly, to save Rhodesia from what he saw, rightly, though few accepted it at the time, a bleak future of rule by communist autocrats. He negotiated with Bishop Abel Muzorewa, a moderate black nationalist of the United African National Council (UANC) and ZANU, two black African parties that were not aligned with the Mugabe/Nkomo communist guerrila movement. The so called "Internal Settlement" was an attempt to achieve black majority rule peacefully. As a result, Rhodesia's first election under universal suffrage was held in 1979, with the UANC winning power. Rhodesia became Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

However, the "Internal Settlement" still maintained 28% of Parliament chosen for almost exclusively whites only seats, with continuity of the white dominated judiciary, civil service and armed forces. While there was a vision of a transition towards broader involvement at all levels, Mugabe and Nkomo continued to fight for a revolution. Nevertheless, the election which was held was deemed to be free and fair by international observers, with a 63% turnout.

In other words, despite calls for a boycott from ZANU-PF and ZAPU, the majority voted and a majority government emerged. However, it was damned by the UN and not recognised by the UK or the US administrations.

ZANU-PF (backed by China with North Korean support) and ZAPU (backed by the USSR and its satellites) had long been fighting a civil war against the Smith regime. They had strong backing from neighbouring Marxist dominated Zambia and Mozambique. This battle was bloody, with the communist militants engaging in activities such as shooting down an airliner then summarily executing the survivors. Bloody fighting continued on both sides, until both the new Zimbabwe-Rhodesia government, ZANU-PF and ZAPU agreed to negotiate in what was known as the Lancaster conference.

The agreement was reached including much aid from British taxpayers and agreement to fund so-called land reform - or rather purchases of white owned farms to be redistributed. Mugabe, as head of ZANU(PF) became President, as Zimbabwe's freest elections ever were held in 1980, and his party came to power. He promised to maintain a private enterprise economy, but as time would tell, Mugabe was to start a slide downhill to tyranny. He talked openly of one-party rule, and Smith was ejected from Parliament when the remaining whites only seats were abolished, and as his criticisms of Mugabe's regime were tolerated less and less. The 1990 election spoke volumes, as opposition candidates were harassed, some murdered, and the President gained the right to appoint 30 MPs of his choosing. The 20,000 Ndebele massacred by Mugabe's 5th brigade in the 1980s should have warned others, but Ian Smith saw it as vindicating his opposition to black majority rule. In truth, it reflected the acceptance of the murderous thugs of ZANU-PF.

Ian Smith may seem vindicated today, he warned of Mugabe and he saw him as a "communist gangster", which he is. Mugabe seduced the international community enough in the early 80s to get power, and since then to be a more murderous, violent, corrupt and despicable leader than Smith ever was. Smith, at worst, was racist and failed to make early steps to move Rhodesia to a peaceful transition towards universal suffrage. The creation of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia was too little too late, but had it happened ten years earlier it may have seen a united government able to fight the communist militants. Indeed, one can perhaps blame the Carter, Wilson and then early Thatcher administration for not sticking by it. However Ian Smith did not bulldoze people's homes while they were in them, he didn't massacre civilians in the street, and he didn't steal millions from the state to enrich himself and his cronies. He was no hero, but history should look fonder upon him than Mugabe - they were both authoritarians of their own kind, but only one destroyed an economy, engaged in indiscriminate murder on a wide scale and halved the life expectancy of the population. Smith's biggest mistake was seeing it being a fight of race, not one of ideology.

As the Times reports, more than a few Zimbabweans say it was better under Ian Smith, and I don't mean white ones.

Aussie takes a step sideways

So it's Rudd. 6.3% swing to Labor, meaning Australia was sick of Howard and despite prosperity it was looking for something more. So what'll he do?

He'll take Australian troops out of Iraq - but then, Iraq seems to be improving in any case. No doubt this wont help Australia-US relations on trade of course.

He'll soften labour laws, increasing unemployment and reducing growth - but well Labor Parties typically don't represent working people, rather trade unionists.

He'll sign Kyoto, but not much will change. After all, Australia's per capita contribution of CO2 is largely because it has very energy intensive mining industries, and the transport costs across a vast low density country are high. Peter Garrett as environment minister ought to frighten a few though.

On the bright side, the loose wheel third party of Australian politics - the Democrats - have vanished from the Senate, though largely replaced by the Greens. However, even with the Greens and renegade independent Senator Xenophon, it is still a hung Senate between that lot, and the Liberal/National coalition, with a single Family First Senator. It wont be easy to force much change through the Senate.

So a slight swing to the left, and the new Labor cabinet will learn a lot from officials in the next few weeks - about what they can't really do, or about delaying things. No doubt Helen Clark will be cheering, although Rudd is probably more conservative than John Key!

Australians voted for a new Prime Minister, but they really didn't vote for new policies. So unless Rudd has some tricks up his sleeve, it's business as usual, by and large.

Us vs Them - Trotter, Marxism and what he REALLY thinks.

Not PC and Lindsay Mitchell both comment excellently on Chris Trotter's column (on Mitchell's blog), which paints an explicitly Marxist view of the debate on free speech and democracy. It is one that puts in stark reality what the view of those on the left is based on - one that should be a lesson to you all.

For Trotter it is "us" and "them". "Us" means the masses, the working classes, or as he would say those who are "obliged to earn a living by hiring ourselves out to the fortunate fifth". A view you'd find taught in Moscow 30 years ago. Those earning salaries could NEVER set up a business of their own could they? No. Indeed, those earning salaries are somehow inferior, at a disadvantage, though you might wonder if people didn't set up a business and didn't get a job, how Trotter would expect them to survive, except by the charity of others - or force (one he quite understands).

More telling is his view of "them". The "fortunate fifth". The despicable envy ridden venom for those who own more than others. You see if you save some of your salary, and set up a business, or make some investments, instead of drinking it, or spending it on consumption you are "fortunate". In the world of the Marxist success isn't something that everyone can aspire to if they work hard, apply their minds and try to get ahead - it is luck. It is clearly "luck" that such people are sought after by companies, not the fact that in most cases, hard work and intelligence get rewarded by those who value them. No, in Trotter's world it is binary.

"Them" own most things, it was luck they got it, and that is unfair isn't it? "Us", well we work for "them" increasing their wealth and they pay us a little to keep us going. See where this is heading? It is heading for the view that at the least, the state must exist to take from "them" to compensate "us" for the fact that "luck" bestowed property upon "them". At its worst it grants justification for the rivers of blood in revolution brought about by Marxists throughout the 20th century. After all, if you are taught that this is the way the world works, you might be angry and see the inequality in incomes and property as being unfair - not a simple reflection of the wide range of human abilities, intelligence, decisions made that were right and wrong, that those at either end of the "them" and "us" spectrum (rather than it being binary) may shift roles in our lives. More than one millionaire has ended up destitute or salaried, and vice versa.

For Marxists, the rich that have fallen are to be laughed at. The poor that have succeeded either better be engaging in significant amounts of charity and transfers, or are liars, cheats and have only succeeded through exploitation.

It is a fundamental bigotry against success - a bigotry that should be counter to human nature - imagine a civilisation that despises success. You don't have to imagine - go to North Korea, Cuba, look at China 1949-1979, Cambodia 1975-1979, "Myanmar", Albania 1945-1991, Romania 1947-1990, and on and on. It is a bigotry that at best stagnates and suppresses, with a little blood spilt from day to day (Cuba), at worst it murders en masse (China, Cambodia).

So this is how Trotter sees the debate - a debate about democracy. He sees democracy as only being legitimate when it grants the masses the right to say what he deems they would say if only they knew their best interests. These are leftwing views. He derides other views as those of the "owning classes". You wonder if he even thinks the "owning classes" should be allowed to participate. He knows if he said "no" he'd be walking right into the countries I listed above. After all, many communist states used the word "democratic" in their titles because they genuinely said they were "people's democracies" - "us" being represented by the communist party, in which case why represent "them" as they exploit, lie and cheat, so you only need one party to encompass the interests of "us". Trotter's view may perfectly align with the one party state.

However he isn't QUITE there yet. You see he also knows Labour swings from right to left, the 1980s being the period he despises most. He likes having the Greens and Maori Party keeping Labour honest with a leftwing perspective, and remember the Alliance which he credits as bringing Labour home. He also doesn't think you need you do away with liberal democracy to keep the left in power, you just need to regulate the expression of views of "them" by passing laws to ensure nobody can spend more money than "us" on that expression. Trotter's steady state democracy sees Labour permanently in power (pretty much), with the Greens and Maori Party keeping them there and honest. National permanently in opposition (by and large) and he'd just wish ACT would disappear, because that is "them" par excellence. He sees NZ First as representing a conservative version of "us", the one Rob Muldoon cultivated and which is long gone in National. Besides, Winston and Peter Dunne have been keeping "us" in power, so let's not get too upset (and both are one man ponies who are likely to retire in one or two elections).

Trotter also believes that, for all of his advocacy of "us" - most of "us" are really quite simple folk, bless them, salt of the earth I am sure. "Us" are easily swayed by lots of advertising, billboards, television, leaflets which advocate the election of "them", which criticises those who defend "us". In 2005 that's what happened. "Them" conspired, with a tiny religious sect (you can smell the evil), to produce billboards, leaflets and advertising that wasn't regulated or restricted enough. "Us" almost lost the election. Now "us" can't let "them" seduce the simple "us" to vote against their best interests can we? So we need a level playing field of advertising.

So the word "equality" is bandied about. Not actual equality mind you, he'd never expect Libertarianz and Labour to have the same amount of publicity - "don't be ridiculous", but enough to keep Labour and National on the same level. He says "them" want to "restrict ready access to effective mass communication technologies to people like THEMselves".

Funny how the argument to do the precise opposite is turned on its head - Marxists do that. However, his view is that such technologies aren't owned by the owners. He wants access to newspapers (which he actually has if he didn't notice it), broadcasting, forgets the internet is very much a free for all, forgets that anyone can publish leaflets, booklets and the like if they want - but hold on, what if you have MORE money. Ahhh, that's unfair. So he wants to restrict it. You see if you have the means and will to spend more money on political advertising than others, then you are one of "them" - which means you got the money from "luck" - and when you engage in politics you're ONLY going to express one political perspective.

You see, Trotter thinks "them" only want one thing - to use the state to defend the "them" and "us" system he has structured society and the economy into. So if you believe in "them" and "us" there are only two points of view. Therefore those with money want to use the state to advance themselves (ignoring that most advanced themselves in spite of the state!). We can't have the state advancing "them" can we? It's unfair. So that is why we need the EFB from his perspective.

Marxists want the EFB so "them" (people with money, who by definition got it by luck or exploitation) can't convince "us" (people without money, who are seduced by the advertising of "them" and don't know what's best for them, and who can't aspire to be one of "them", because "them" don't want it), to put "them" in power, defeating "us" (many of whom live and act like "them" but let's not mention that) in power. If "them" got in power they would use the state to make "them" richer and more powerful, and exploit "us" more and take away more of the "fair share" for "us". While "us" are in power, we'll take from "them" and look after "us". If we let "them" do as they wish, they would always be in power because most of "us" would be seduced by the advertising of "them".

It is a stark view of democracy that says most people are too stupid to know what is good for them and wont vote for their best interests, unless the views expressed at elections are in equal quantities - only then is it clear that they should vote for "us".

Arguments about freedom are meaningless in this world view. He sees those advocating freedom as "them" wanting freedom to not give "us" our share, and to exploit "us". Freedom for "us" is enough if you can protest and not get arrested, but that's it.

Of course, I wonder what category a man who has considerable access to all broadcast media and major print media would put himself in. He will claim to be one of "us", but how many of "us" have his power to influence? Or is it ok to be one of "them" in this situation. You know, a bit like how those high up the communist party would act and live like one of "them", but say if they didn't then the rest of "them" would get "us".

and in Australia, how come without such a law, it looks like "us" might beat "them"? Ah, but "them" have been in power for so long - they let "us" win for a term to remind us it's still democracy don't they?

Funny to be in the brain of a Marxist isn't it?