May 7, 2008

‘Putting a flea in the ear’ of the politicians — Part 2

I began relating last week how the voters of New Zealand found a unique way to “put a flea in the ear” of (pass a message on to) their politicians during the 1984 election campaign.

There were actually several “peculiar” aspects to this particular election, but our story revolves around a pair of university students living in a very rural and supposedly safe conservative electorate (which I have equated with a district here in the United States, on the assumption that New Zealand is the size of a state) had found that a loophole in the electoral act had enabled them to register their dog as a candidate in the election.

I also remind readers that last week I noted that in New Zealand, campaigns are not officially permitted to begin until about four weeks prior to the election.

In the days leading up to the official “commencement of hostilities”, media outlets nationwide began to take their polls, in the hope of determining the lay of the land at the start of the campaign, and helping to analyze the effects of the opening speeches by the “major players”.

In our electorate, the incumbent conservative member was expected to dominate, although frustration with national-level politics could possibly have opened the door to his opponent from the other main party, or maybe a third party candidate.

When the results of the first poll in our electorate was published, there was a clear three-way race, but not quite the race that anyone expected. The candidates of the two major parties both had around 20 percent support, as did one other candidate - the dog!

The other human candidates lagged well behind.

The media laughed.

“The hillbillies are playing a joke”. The story made it onto the “funny stories” pages, but no one took it seriously.

Except the hillbillies! They had never before had any publicity at election time, and clearly saw their opportunity.

The major parties opened their campaigns, and the race for power was on. Out came the first official poll results, and for the sake of amusement, a check was made of the situation in our electorate.

Truly, one candidate had benefitted from the start to the serious debate - the dog had now opened up a clear lead.

Now, the media had a real story!

The local farmers clearly liked the attention, and by the end-of-the-first-week polls, the dog now had almost percent of voter support.

And making things more interesting, polls nationally were showing that this was going to be a very close election. Every electorate counted, and if a “stray” candidate managed to break through and get a win, he (or she) may well hold the deciding vote in the next parliament.

And the canine candidate was starting to look like an absolute certainty!

This was now getting serious, and the major parties were paying unprecedented attention to this electorate, sending in their “big guns” to campaign against the dog. News and current affairs broadcasts were now forced to discuss the “What if the dog wins?” scenario in their serious election coverage.

The fun lasted the full duration of the campaign, as the dog’s support continued to climb to levels that tin-pot dictators running rigged elections don’t even dare dream about.

The high-profile members of the main parties clearly resented the fact they were being sent to “Mud Lick, Middle of Nowhere” to campaign (and debate policy) against somebody’s pet pooch.

And the voters nationwide were lapping it up.

At the time of the final poll, with the national situation still showing a deadlock, the dog was pretty much the only candidate in his electorate with any support above the margin of error of the poll.

Sadly, on the day that mattered, the hillbillies didn’t go through with their threat, re-electing the incumbent (human).

Honestly, the dog was the smarter of the two!

Nationally, it wouldn’t have mattered as, despite the polls, the opposition party won a landslide victory, but by not following through with their threat, the hillbillies sent a clear message that they were all talk and no action.

The “flea” might have been put in the ear of the politicians, but the lack of enforcement meant that it took a second conservative (National) party defeat in 1987 for a major party to decide it was finally time to look at meaningful electoral reform.

The National Party regained power in 1990 on that very platform, and the multi-party system that New Zealand has today was the result.

Our hero might have been denied the opportunity to (literally) make his mark on the floor of the debating chamber, but he nevertheless played a unique part in a revolution that changed the face of New Zealand politics.

He certainly has a more legitimate claim to the title of “people’s representative” than many human candidates!

FRANK SHANLY

frank@news-banner.com

Email Frank Shanly

Talk about this story in our forums!