Bruce Bisset
Running a democracy sounds simple in theory - one person one vote and majority wins - but can be devilishly complex in practice depending on the type of electoral system, the number of tiers to governance, and the level of engagement of the public in the process.
That last is
becoming crucial, as voting support for national and local politicians drops away; we are already seeing local body elections resolved by less than half the qualified voters, and on current trends the same will soon be true at national level.
At which point one would have to admit the system had failed – and ask, with urgency, whether we could repair it.
Read more: Bruce Bisset: Hawke's Bay fatalities show need to redefine roads
Bruce Bisset: Let me spell it out for you
Some argue the remedy is to have fewer positions governing greater areas, aka a corporate board model, because this maintains some kind of "fairness" in representation – the theory being that if rich and poor, brown and white are all in one big electorate, then everyone has equal chances.
In fact it baldly favours the wealthy, who can best afford to reach so many folk spread over such a wide area. And whose natural support-base is more inclined to vote, regardless – because they know the value of that vote.
In contrast my argument has always been that the more ways you find to offer people to get involved, the more participation you have and the better governance result.
Which is why I was pleasantly surprised to see Napier City offering citizens a chance to support having community boards in two of its communities: Bay View and Maraenui.
Boards are the neglected third tier of the 1989 reforms, and to my mind the coal face mechanism which empowers those reforms by enabling grassroots involvement in our democratic system. Real change happens from the bottom up, so the more about the base it is, the better.
Unfortunately boards are missing in action in Hawke's Bay, and while Napier's initiative was driven by a third of its residents requesting it, the council itself clearly isn't keen to judge by the tepid way they promoted the idea: concentrating on how much it would cost, downplaying what boards might be able to do, and under the header 'How do they work' merely stating how many members a board might have.
Moreover the online questionnaire (now closed) started by stressing how many ways people could already access the council; in effect saying, "Look, we don't actually need this".
In short, it was sham consultation, designed to put people off the whole idea.
Why? Because empowering communities is not the neoliberal way; and while National may be out of power nationally, "big is better" is still "in" at local level.
Indeed this "nothing to see here" strategy worked so well I found myself arguing the case for boards with a Maraenui friend who did not appreciate how extra representation would help his community – even though better governance is his hobby-horse.
So I'm not hopeful of a positive result from this exercise.
Which is a shame, because it's not often the status quo offers (even lukewarmly) to remould itself for community benefit.
And frankly, that's a big reason why participation in elections is dropping off so alarmingly: people on the lower rungs of society feel unrepresented and ignored.
That this becomes self-fulfilling if they don't vote is an argument that's worn thin because they no longer have faith they might matter.
It's also why you mightn't spot many "ordinary citizens" – ie, non-costumed poorer ones – watching the Deco goings-on from the sidelines this weekend. The have-nots stay home, because the last thing they want to do is watch the haves party.