Forming a grand coalition to stop minor parties is a terrible idea

Political commentator Matthew Hooten has told the AM Show that that he believes New Zealand's Opposition and Governing parties should consider forming a grand coalition to keep minority parties out of power. Here’s why I think that’s a terrible idea.

Firstly, I’m not convinced that new minor parties associated with the anti-mandate protests will get the necessary 5% to make it into Parliament.

It’s a lot harder to achieve that target than some people realise, and even harder if you are a single issue voting bloc featuring a diversity of strong-willed characters, with varying agendas, vying for leadership control.

Let’s say they are able to overcome these hurdles, however, and they manage to gain some seats in Parliament in 2023, what Hooten is proposing here would still be a terribly foolish thing to do.

One of the frustrating failures of leadership, which directly contributed to the escalation of the anti-mandate parliamentary protest, was the refusal of those in power to even engage with the aggrieved citizens they were elected to serve.

Declaring a political war against these same Kiwis by establishing a supermajority would be repeating that same leadership mistake on a much larger and even more incendiary scale.

It would be perceived by many Kiwis, who already feel disenfranchised, that, even if you follow the rules of our democracy, those with the power will still rig the system to shut you out.

That would not only be a failure to learn from history, but it would also be a recipe for absolutely disastrous social outcomes for our nation.

We saw what happened to the country in 2020 when we had a Government operating without the accountability provided by a fully functioning major opposition party, do we really want that enshrined for three years?

What about the Labour and National voters? Would the majority of them really be happy to vote red or blue if they knew that their vote could actually end up turning purple?

Astute cultural observers might be aware that the two major parties are now both liberal parties, with some possibly even considering this a utopian blessing, but it seems doubtful that the majority of ordinary Kiwis are cognizant of this ideological shell game we, along with most of the West, currently find ourselves caught up in.

In their minds, Labour and National are markedly different parties, and so the notion of an interchangeable vote, or a vote that could result in a LabNat coalition probably seems like a nonsensical waste of a vote. I suspect this would probably lead to lower voter turnout for the two main parties, along with a transference of votes on one side to Act, and on the other to the Greens. (Unless he envisions a Parliament in which Act and the Greens also agree to become part of an unaccountable monolith?)

I have a strong suspicion that most people voting National or Labour in 2023 are going to be doing so because they don’t want the other major party anywhere near the reins of power.

Taking this course of action also would be completely contrary to the primary reasoning for even having an MMP system in the first place - which was supposed to increase a diversity of voices in our Parliament in order to prevent unaccountable control of the house.

Which raises an interesting question: isn’t Hooten actually highlighting a much deeper and more pressing issue here?

Aren’t his concerns really pointing to the fact that we have some big problems with MMP which need urgent reform rather than unhelpful, and arguably undemocratic, Machiavellian stunts?

When you consider the fact that MMP failed to protect the country from an unaccountable Labour supermajority at the last election, the case for reform was already a strong one.

Then some of the questionable COVID policy responses which exposed some glaring deficiencies in the current parliamentary systems, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act simply bolstered the argument that change is needed.

Surely it’s time to revisit questions such as the need for a constitution, two Houses of Parliament, and a preference voting system which would actually promote diversity and demand greater accountability of the major parties?

Even if we don’t want to embark down the path of what I believe to be some much needed political reform, there is still a much less incendiary way of addressing the question Hooten poses.

Surely both major parties could simply refuse to enter into any coalition arrangement which would require them to cede to any unreasonable policy arrangements as part of the bargain?

Or, are we so bereft of principled leaders, and so concerned about the deficiencies of our current systems of governance that we now consider such an outcome to be beyond the realms of possibility?