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.