In the clearest sign yet that the Maxim Institute is rapidly diverging from the Christian Right over public policy issues, the centre-right public policy thinktank has just issued an extraordinary Real Issues newsletter in which it repudiates the Christian Right orthodoxy over binding citizens initiated referenda.

Entitled “Government shouldn’t change the law just because of a referendum“,  the startling piece deals with the questions of populist referenda and representative democracy, firmly coming down on the side of the latter.  The Institute sees some dangers in this:

However, direct democracy is not the ideal, and we shouldn’t base our institutions on it or expect our representatives to simply translate popular sentiment into law. The purpose of government is to secure the common good—to enable us to live together in peace under conditions that allow us to flourish. Whatever form of government we adopt has to be able to make good laws that will achieve this goal, even when this is unpopular.Direct popular control over the content of the law is not likely to produce good law. Lawmaking requires careful thought in response to detailed facts. On many issues, voters do not have the time or resources to consider everything relevant. The electorate cannot frame alternative proposals but just responds to a yes/no take-it-or- leave-it question. The experience from the United States shows why we shouldn’t extend binding citizen-initiated referenda to New Zealand. There, special interests capture the direct law-making process, manipulating poorly informed majorities to make laws in the interests of the promoters. Also, voters in a series of referenda may well adopt inconsistent positions. In California, for example, voters in 1978 effectively froze taxes but then in later years approved a number of specific funding commitments, contributing to their present budgetary crisis.This is what I’ve been saying for ages.That is why we should model our institutions on representative democracy, not direct democracy. Representative democracy gives lawmakers the job of thinking carefully and independently about the best course of action. It avoids the pitfalls of direct democracy, because an assembly of full-time lawmakers has the capacity to consider relevant facts and arguments, including a range of alternatives, not just one take-it-or-leave-it proposal. And if their decisions prove unsatisfactory, they can easily revisit them. There is accountability—voters select the legislators, who have good reason in a competitive electorate to consult them and to make law after a public process that is open to popular participation.This all sounds quite sane and mainstream. I agree. We write submissions, we appear before select committees, we represent our views derived from evidence-based medical and social scientific data and it affects resultant legislation.While representative democracy is better than direct democracy, for it to fulfil its promise, it is vital that legislators deliberate publicly and carefully. Otherwise, they are unlikely to legislate well. Unfortunately, our Parliament doesn’t always make room for careful deliberation. Parliament gives itself the best chance of considering issues deeply and fully, and coming up with lasting solutions that people will accept, when it takes its time. This includes genuine opportunities for public input and consultation, allowing thoughtful public reflection on the issues. This allows flaws and unintended consequences in a bill to be identified, and gives the facts and underlying worldviews a chance to be well-ventilated. And, as much as it is ever possible to do so, it insulates a proposed law from sheer political expediency. However, there are some points of disagreement: Most recently, a mere two weeks was allowed for submissions on the bill repealing the criminal defence of provocation. True, but there is the Law Commission’s existing paper to guide public debate.

For good reason, we have the structure of a representative democracy. It would be wrong for Parliament to change the “anti-smacking” law just because of the referendum.

It ends by suggesting that we take “legislative deliberation” seriously.

I never, ever thought I’d hear myself say this…but well done, Maxim.

And moreover, this may lead to some frictions between the various denominational factions of the Christian Right. Fundamentalists are enthusiastic supporters of binding citizens referenda, given that they don’t tend to have particularly good strategic management skills. However, conservative Catholics seem to be more hesitant- particularly those uneasy at what has happened in Oregon and Washington, where a BCIR introduced physician assisted suicide. Populist gambits don’t neccessarily lead to ‘palatable’ social conservative outcomes. Granted, the denominational dividing line isn’t set in stone. There will be some conservative Catholics who side with the fundamentalists over BCIRS due to their slavish adherence to co-belligerency in the context of pro-belting activism. There will be some fundamentalists and evangelicals whose primary religious and political commitment is to the anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia causes, and similarly will side with them and against BCIRs. Given that the Kiwi Party is distributing a (non-binding) referendum petition on this very issue, it’ll be interesting to see if anxiety turns into open schism between conservative Catholics fearful of the consequences of BCIR introduction and fundamentalist zealots, blind to the possible adverse strategic consequences.

The Economist provides some clues about the current orientation of the Maxim Institute, albeit comparatively. It focuses on the role of Ian Duncan-Smith’s Centre for Social Justice and its antipoverty, civil society and antidrug rhetoric. However, the centre-right social liberal magazine notes that David Cameron must do a balancing act, as noted in his recent disavowal of creationism. Poverty and delinquency are the current focuses of this Christian Centre-Right, the magazine concludes.

Furthermore, the Institute has just posted an essay by Richard Ekins (University of Auckland) on the same subject. Entitled “Government for the People: The Value of Representative Democracy”, it makes some telling points against CIRs but stops short of advocating wholesale repeal.

It’s not just the New Zealand Christian Right that has these problems- it’s also the Australian Liberal Party. Across the Tasman, Guy Rundle is pessimistic about Tony Abbott and the Liberals chances in any climate change-related federal election. He argues that the Liberal civil war over their ETS is indicative of deeper professional/populist splits. If the Liberals pander to populist scientific illiterates over this issue, they will drive away educated professional urban liberals.

The Institute and Christian Right now seem to be addressing two different, incompatible constituencies.

Postscript: Although, perhaps not quite. In May 2010, the Institute has just invited one Ryan Messmore to speak on social justice. Messmore is a US Heritage Foundation charities specialist and opposes central government welfare provision. Radical welfare privatisation lies thataway… And is the apparent abandonment of the UK Centre for Social Justice attributable to Philippa Stroud’s failure to enter the House of Commons, one wonders?

Recommended:

Richard Ekins and Alex Penk: “Government shouldn’t change the law just because of a referendum” Maxim Institute: http://www.maxim.org.nz

Richard Ekins: A Government For the People: The Value of Representative Democracy: http://www.maxim.org.nz/files/pdf/a_government_for_the_people.pdf

“Missionary Positions” Economist: 28.11.09: 57-8

Guy Rundle: “Time for true Liberals to break away” Melbourne Age: 05.12.09:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/time_for_true_liberals_to_break_away_20091205-kcOw.html

Kiwi Party: http://www.thekiwiparty.org.nz