This column titled ‘Oversimplifications’ may be the first of a few in lead up to this year’s general election.

The reason for this is that nearly every subject and indeed everything that I write, they almost always merits something significantly longer, if not a book, to explain the complexity and nuances, analyse the pros, cons, and counter arguments – most of which I have considered, having dwelled on many of these issues for years.

However, if I did include all of these thoughts, 1) I’d never finish any of these and 2) There’s not enough room in the newspaper! So below is just an ‘oversimplification’ of a slightly more complex concept.

For the most part, there is some consensus that there is something wrong with the politics in our country. In the late 90s “political reform” was all the rage, everyone wanted “change” and was saying it as part of their political pitch in the aftermath of the fiscal crisis.

In the years subsequent, apart from a report in 1999 (Short, Crocombe & Herrmann), there has been little to no effort to pursue it. It is usually around election time (especially after) when people start questioning the fairness of 50 people being represented by a seat when 1500 somewhere else only are represented by one person. This tends to raise concerns and questions about the equity of the system with the thought that it is outdated with the shifts of populations etc. Others argue that these populations left because they were neglected by the power base in Raro. Both arguments have points, but this is not the real or main issue I see with the system. The main problem is this:

The job description for a Member of Parliament does not fit the application criteria. What do I mean? Well let me first start by explaining (in short) the job of our MPs. The job of an MP is to sit in Parliament to discuss and decide upon legislation on behalf of their constituency, for the whole country. And it is the last part of the sentence that is relevant here. When sitting in Parliament, an MP must be thinking about the welfare of the whole country. Now there are two problems with the previous sentence: 1) Our Parliament barely sits and 2) I have heard many times from numerous MPs, “I only care what happens in my constituency,” and moreover, this sentiment generally seems to be supported by their constituents, which brings us to the criteria part of my argument.

When people are choosing or deciding upon their MP, the question that seems to currently drive motivation for choosing the MP for their respective area is, “what will this MP do for me and my village and island specifically?”. On the surface this seems fair, as the MP job can be considered a reward for community service, thus whoever has done the most for the community wins. More than fair right?

The problem with this mentality is politicians become almost entirely focused on projects in their constituency, regardless whether it’s the other places in the country that are in need. In particular, it is infrastructure where the politicians focus, as those are projects people can see and touch and the MP can point to it and say, “I did that!”. This essentially becomes toxic for decision making, and for the country, where opposition strongholds can end up being neglected and it is toxic for the government and officials where political pressure, intimidation and agendas override good planning and bad project execution.

So you might ask, what is the “correct” criteria by which we should be choosing our MPs? Well, if we look at the job (i.e. sitting in Parliament and making laws for the entire country), then we should think about, “Who will represent our community and values best, in making laws that effect the entire country?”. I think in some instances, it slightly changes the way we think about who might be best to represent our village. However, what about those people who put the community first? They are important, what role should that play? Shouldn’t they be “rewarded?”.

In short, yes, I do believe (with some reform) a role for them to play. That role is in local government. However, this is not an attractive proposition at this time, so a few things need to change to make this work.

1. Re-establish local government in Rarotonga. Along similar lines of what once existed, i.e. by Vaka. Perhaps one mayor and one councilor per political constituency. I’m not super set on this, though we need three representatives on Rarotonga, and I think it’s healthy for it to be disentangled from the MPs constituencies.
2. The annual capital budget is split between projects of (broadly) under $7 million and those over $7 million. The intent here is to split capital projects in to two categories: National projects for central government and community projects for local, including roads and bridges.
3. The local government capital budget will be determined by the “National Council of Local governments”, which will be convened once a year to determine how the various projects will be prioritised and implemented across the country annually. Whilst their focus is local, they will have to negotiate with their peers to get things done. Once decided, these projects are managed by central government agencies (specifically Infrastructure Cook Islands). This helps take away MPs or mayors pressuring government staff (in theory … this is still likely to happen)
4. Central government will decide upon larger scale national projects (as is currently the case for all projects).

Also, to incentivise politicians from both sides of the a/isle to sit down and do their job, we should have their MP salaries linked to sitting days, 100 plus sitting days allows them to access 100 per cent of their entitlements and anything under 50 per cent means they only access 50 per cent of their salaries. It will certainly ensure a more active opposition compared to the lame duck situation we have presently, where they seem just as content to not have sittings as the current government. A Parliament that rarely sits is a clear sign of a failing democracy.

In the interests of realism, we must also face facts and explain why this or anything like it will never happen, at least in the foreseeable future – two words: “moral hazard”. In short, moral hazard is when for the right thing to happen you need the person or persons benefiting from a certain system, to act against their own self-interest and stop or change that system (for the greater good). A political party will rarely if ever look to change the system that bought them into power, except in ways to consolidate their own power (see Russia, and gerrymandering in the United States). We have heard nothing on this issue from either party for the better part of a decade and as our population becomes more fed up, disillusioned, and disengaged from the political system, the expectations for better from our leaders fall. As the saying goes, “Apathy is the glove in which evil slips its hand”.

However, this piece is not written with the intent to depress and despair, rather to inspire thought. Someone wiser (and older) than me once told me, “There is nothing more dangerous than an idea whose time has come”.

That time may not be now, but maybe it’s on the way.