We voted for this at the last election

I WAS told this week that a national tragedy had occurred; that my future and my country's future had been sold; that National's sale of assets, which were potentially against the will of the public, are akin to that of Adolf Hitler's manifesto. I think none of these assertions are accurate, but perhaps more importantly, for youth and the future of New Zealand, is the questions raised about our "democratic system" as a result of this divisive debate.

Indeed, as legislation enabling the sale of 3 per cent of the Government's assets has been passed this week, opposition politicians and activists have cried foul. They have claimed the Government does not have a mandate to sell assets, and their doing so is an effective assault on democracy. All this begs the question, is our democratic system really all that democratic?

Suggestions the National-led Government does not have a mandate for the sale of assets seems absurd; when the crux of most debates and discussions in the public sphere prior to last year's general election was the sale of assets. In the simplest sense, you have to wonder how a party can not claim a mandate with the largest party vote since the advent of MMP in New Zealand, and when they gain almost enough seats in parliament to govern alone.

Additionally, their two coalition partners supporting this legislation, Peter Dunne and John Banks (I assume party names are no longer really needed for these two), campaigned with a clearly articulated intention to support the National Party in the sale of assets.

Representative democracy is about the public electing parties promising a bundle of policies and when the public does so emphatically, it is hard to argue that they should be obliged to abandon those promises. This is partly because the rest of the policies within that bundle are arguably dependent on the sale of assets.

National campaigned with the intention to keep interest off student loans, reduce debt and pass a range of other policies to fulfil these promises which Kiwis voted for as a group. To demand that the government should abandon one promise from within their manifesto, threatens the feasibility of a large number of other promises.

I imagine it would be rather troublesome if we implemented a system of direct rather than representative democracy, where referenda were held on all contentious issues, and where bundles of policies were never secure. If a referendum was held one month on, say, whether we want lower taxes, the majority of people would vote 'yes'. If we then had a referendum on whether the government should increase funding of education or healthcare, it's likely the answer would once more be 'yes'. But these two policies, while optimal in isolation, are incompatible when placed alongside one another. We simply can't reduce taxes and increase spending, even though each policy alone would be widely supported.

For those that do support such extreme democracy, in which popular opinion determines the outcome, it is helpful to look at examples. California's system of direct democracy, turning to referenda to decide a plethora of issues, has led to the downfall of this state's finances for exactly the aforementioned reasons. Because direct democracy has enabled citizens to demand greater spending, but also allowed them to enforce limits on taxation, leading to California's credit rating falling from one of the best in the United States of America, to the worst of its 50 states, within just one generation.

I also have to question, in relation to the way democracy has been moulded for various purposes over the course of this legislation being argued, whether the opposition have really conducted themselves in accordance with their apparently pure principles of democracy.

Rather than relying on citizens' initiated referenda, the Green Party has taken the liberty of using $76,000 of their leader's office allowance to pay employees to garner signatures for the petition demanding a referendum. If the will of the public was so vehement, surely this type of expenditure would not be necessary.

The issue of asset sales is one which has elicited a great deal of debate. Underlying it all are questions about the state and degree of democracy in our country.

For me though, the issue of asset sales and its passage through parliament has answered these questions just as much as it has asked them.

Elections give a government not only a mandate, but also a responsibility, to do as it promised.