New Zealand Politics - Essay Example

New Zealand Politics Introduction The New Zealand politics compared to numerous s or regions’ politics present an extremely odd trend. The campaigns for the general elections expected to occur in September are currently in a twilight zone. Recently, a candidate was heard campaigning against an opponent. This was very strange but with the elections around the corner, the politicians will actually do anything to gain a few votes here and there. The Labour party is in an awkward position because of the shifty nature of its leaders. Based on Lees-Marshment (2009), “The field of marketing politics is a phenomena that is growing very fast” (Lees-Marshment, 2009, p. 457). There can never be a given party dare to jeopardy proceeding to determining election ahead of utilising political marketing tolls with the intention of understanding the New Zealand citizens and have a competitive advantage (Lees-Marshment, 2009). The politicians utilize all pre-elections strategies available, they rebrand themselves; they exploit e-marketing services, conduct research on their opponents and do multiple direct campaigns. In the 2008 election campaigns, the political parties utilised most of these tools, which is no different in 2014. The political parties are relying on all their supporters to vote for them in the coming elections. The Electoral Act of 1993 provides for and governs the present electoral system in New Zealand. Elections & electoral law New Zealand is a monarchy under the constitution. The Head of State is her majesty Elizabeth II Queen of England for the modelling of the government is adopts British parliamentary system. This is state has a prime minister who heads the opposition and a resident governor general representative of the British monarch. The parliament is New Zealand’s House of Representatives. The prime ministers and the ministers of the crown make up the cabinet. Cabinet members are the members of parliament. New Zealand is a representative democracy and its members of parliament their election is in every three years in the general elections, which are free and fair. Democracy entails fair and periodic elections. The state’s next universal elections will be on 20th September 2014. All the citizens and permanent residents of at least eighteen years old ought to register as voters though not obligatory for them to vote. Nevertheless, the voter turnout in this state is quite high when compared to other countries (Immigration, 2014). According to Hillman (2009, p.472), “People may refrain from voting because they think that the probability of their one vote being decisive is effectively zero”. Suppose there lacked voting by the anticipated for they deemed that their single vote was irrelevant, the electoral system would cease to exist. However, the likelihood of one vote affecting the outcome is insignificant. There is no law that makes voting in New Zealand compulsory. People may choose to vote or refrain from the exercise. Nevertheless, those vying for parliamentary seats conduct several campaigns and the government encourages its citizens and the permanent residents to exercise their democratic right of voting. This particular State’s voting system entails that one cast two votes. One is for the constituency MP and the other is for the party. There are 70 constituency MPs and 50 MPs appointed from party lists so that parliament’s composition reflects the percentage of votes received by each party. The percentage of voters casting votes tend to be very high. In the 2008 general election, 79 percent of the electors voted. This was the fourth occasion since 1902 whereby the voter turnout fell below 80 percent (Anderson, 2011, p.39). The adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007 has intensified discussions on how the rights recognized therein can be realised. Among others, the Declaration recognises the right of indigenous peoples get involved fully in the political life of the state. Although many states have argued that, the right to vote ensures equal partaking of all natives in ascertaining the membership of state parliaments, experience has shown that such a right on its own may be inadequate. Native representatives are rarely elected where indigenous peoples constitute numeric minorities within the national whole or in individual electoral districts. Furthermore, political parties and candidates rarely promote indigenous agendas, as they try to gain the non-indigenous majority vote. This minimises, even eliminates native voices in state parliaments besides yielding to natives’ absence from decisions in matters relevant to them. Xanthaki & OSullivan (2009) cites the state presents an image thus chronological documentation of situations including, “ political will and certainly Maori struggles have resulted in relatively significant Maori political participation in elective and administrative bodies” (Xanthaki & OSullivan, 2009, p.182). An insight into several factors that ensure Maori participation in the national unicameral Parliament brings out interesting ideas for other states with indigenous populations. People of Maori descent are now able to choose where to enrol for elections. They may choose either the Maori elections or the general elections. Seven seats are reserved for Maori electors with the number of seats depending on the ratio between those registered on the Maori and the general elections (Anderson, 2011, p.39). The Maori partaking is further encouraged by a system of Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP), which has augmented Maori candidates obtaining party selection in winnable positions as well as creation of the Maori Party, an independent indigenous voice formed in 2004 (Xanthaki & OSullivan, 2009, p.182). According to Anderson (2011), “New Zealand achieved universal franchise in 1893, when women were given the right to vote (Anderson, 2011, p.39).” The basis for elections encompasses the democratic premise that one entity one vote (Anderson, 2011). Angelo cites the universal franchise was not always the case (Angelo, 2011, p.60). The New Zealand constitutional Act of 1852 avails only a limited franchise. Only the male landholders or leaseholders who were over the age of 21 were allowed to vote in each electorate where they held land. The women, poor and landless men and most of the Maori did not have a chance meant to vote. This was due to land tenure system. In 1860, the chance to vote extended to miners who held mining rights pursuant to the miner’s franchise Act of 1860 (Angelo, 2011, p.60). In 1867, the Maori Representation Act devised four seats to be held in the Representatives House. Originally, this was meant to be a temporary provision but it was made permanent nine years later by the parliament (Angelo, 2011). The Maori electors were restricted to only male adults and half-castes. Even though they were under-represented in proportion to their population, they received male universal franchise way before their European counterparts. Eight years later, the Lodgers Franchise Act of 1875 extended the franchise to male ratepayers who were above age of 21 (Angelo, 2011). The qualification of Electors Act of 1879 gave the voting right to all British males who were over 21 and had resided in New Zealand for at least one year (Angelo, 2011, p.60). In 1891, there was a proposal to extend the franchise to women. A majority of about three to one carried out the proposal in the House (Drummond, 2013). However, the proposal faced rejection in the Legislative Council by two votes (Drummond, 2013). Mr. Seddon’s regime cited since the proposal had been sanctioned by the representative chamber, it had the consent of the state and the proposal ought to become law without any delay (Drummond, 2013, p.184). The major franchise extension occurred in 1893 when women finally had to vote although the regime did not allow them to strive for parliamentary positions until 1919 (Drummond, 2013). New Zealand set the trend universally when it allowed its women to vote. This was because no other state had done that. The plural voting its abolition was in 1889 and the lease/landholding prerequisite had reinstatement by a residential period in 1879. All the franchise changes from 1889 are less significant (Angelo, 2011). In 1924, it became compulsory for all electoral voters o register and 1956 for the Maori (Angelo, 2011). Even though it is legally enforceable by fines, the sanction was in use. In 1927, there was commencement of postal or special voting whereby in 1969, lowered to 20 then to 18 in 1974 (Angelo, 2011, p.60). Since 1975, the British nationality is no longer a qualification for voting (Earnest, 2009). Earnest cited that New Zealand’s switch from a discriminatory regime to a non-discriminatory permissive one is interesting (Earnest, 2009, p. 33). This is because of its colonial record, its continuing membership in the Common wealth and its proximity to Australia (Australia’s regime cancellation the franchise privileges of British resident aliens only nine years after New state). Thus, the permissive alien suffrage regime is an interesting case (Earnest, 2009, p.33). Currently, only the New Zealand adult citizens and permanent residents can vote, provided they meet the required residential requirements and are not subject to disqualification under the Act. Examples of disqualifications include detainment under Mental Health Act or adults serving an imprisonment term of at least three years (Angelo, 2011, p.60). The 1993 Electoral Act avails for and governs the present electoral system in New Zealand (Angelo, 2011). Its objective has been to avail machinery and form of the electoral system meant to give special protection to certain elements of the system after abolition of the upper house (Angelo, 2011, p.60). There are people who back up the enfranchisement of prisoners. They contend denying them from voting is racist and a violation of own privileges. The detractors argue denying prisoners their right to vote is counterproductive to the rehabilitative aspect of incarceration. Even if prisoners account for a small percentage of voters, the range of views of their voting entitlement ensures that the issue becomes a “political football” whenever there are reforms suggestions (Kelly, 2012). New Zealand allows a partial franchise majorly dependent on the length of sentence and the offense committed (Kelly, 2012, p.54). This entails extensions meant for all imprisoned to express themselves via voting. Wilson (2011) contends, “whether the people of New Zealand will change the current electoral system in the upcoming binding referendum is unknown” (Wilson, 2011, p.516). For any given state, electoral system preference and those allowed to vote are taken very seriously as they are very important constitutional issues (Kelly, 2012). This is because they represent the democracy in that particular state. New Zealand attains its general elections in ways that reflect the state’s history and constitutional value (Kelly, 2012). References Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Anderson, G. J. 2011. Labour law in New Zealand. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, Kluwer Law International. Angelo, A. H. 2011. Constitutional law in New Zealand. Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International. Drummond, J. 2013. Life and work of richard john seddon : with a history of the. [S.l.], Cambridge University Pres. Top of FormEarnest, David C. 2009. Old Nations, New Voters Nationalism, Transnationalism, and Democracy in the Era of Global Migration. State Univ of New York Pr. Hillman, A. L. 2009. Public finance and public policy: responsibilities and limitations of government. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Immigration New Zealand. 2014. Who can vote in NZ elections? Web. 8 August 2014. Retrieved from http://www.dol.govt.nz/immigration/knowledgebase/item/5121 Kelly, N. 2012. Directions in Australian electoral reform professionalism and partisanship in electoral management. Canberra, ANU E Press. http://press.anu.edu.au?p=179731. Lees-Marshment, J 2009, Political Marketing and the 2008 New Zealand Election: A Comparative Perspective, Australian Journal Of Political Science, 44, 3, pp. 457-475, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 August 2014. Wilson, M 2011, Electoral Reform in the United Kingdom: Lessons from New Zealand, Round Table, 100, 416, pp. 509-517, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 August 2014.Top of Form Xanthaki, A, & OSullivan, D 2009, Indigenous Participation in Elective Bodies: The Maori in New Zealand, International Journal On Minority & Group Rights, 16, 2, pp. 181-207, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 August 2014. Read More