Brazil Has Lessons for Us with MMP

The problems facing President Loula da Silva in Brazil offer us a few timely lessons heading into an MMP election, which is likely to require one of our two major parties to enter into messy coalition arrangements with either NZ First or harder still, a group of micro survivors.
Like NZ, Brazil has a greatly improved macro financial situation with falling government debt, inflation at a low (by their standards) of 6.5% and a string of 4 to 5% annual growth figures. Like NZ, their currency is at historic highs and they have had big growth in government spending. The tax take is described at Nordic levels of 38% but unlike NZ delivers African services.
The president’s problem is governing without a party majority. The first year after the election things went OK as the agreement with the alliance parties held for a while after their support had been purchased through placing many of their members on the various boards and commissions available. This gets peace for a bit but overloads important bodies with inexperienced members and performance slides.
The main party soon finds its policies compromised by these alliances. The compromises that sacrificed principals to get progress end up preventing progress, especially as members of the minor groups start a bidding war for more. Any of this sound familiar? Cycling ways and Commissioners for the Family?
Mistrust sets in, bad behaviour follows and now they face every conversation being taped and videoed and the main party finds itself contaminated with falling public confidence. If President Loula fails then who will run Ecuador, Mexico or Bolivia?
What this shows is how important the skill of managing such coalitions is, and it is fair to say that the Clark government has managed this process quite well, although the luck of having the mild United Future to balance the more feral Greens may not occur again, and whoever gets to partner Winston Peters can expect a much more challenging term.
Experienced Brazilian diplomats are urging more separation of government from the administration and reducing the bureaucracy, training less lawyers and more engineers. Common themes in growing progressive countries!
Over the next month or two much will be made of the experience of the incumbent Labour team versus the naïve enthusiasm of the National challengers. Good luck to voters in trying to sort through what will be a bewildering array of claim and counter claim.
Perhaps we could look at what is good and bad at present and how some of this might pan out.
I imagine that even National will grudgingly admit that our macro finances have been
competently managed and are in a relatively good position. For my money the two best things that the Labour government have done are staying out of Iraq and negotiating a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with China (albeit not quite finished yet).
Not rushing into the Coalition of the blindly obedient to USA has resulted in our country being seen as distinctly different from our Aussie neighbours for the first time, particularly in Asia, the Middle East and South America (which accounts for most of the world’s population). The Australian/USA FTA that the Nats seem to wish to emulate is full of fish-hooks and there are all sorts of risks if they rush after Bush’s USA. Better relationships with USA in the future are more than just a good idea, but not at any price and maybe not now while they are on their "Middle East Muslim terrorist axis of evil"mission.
The size of government will definitely be a battleground for this election with Labour held to ransom by the internal union support and National pushing for a freeing up of employment legislation. Both sides of this argument will have an audience. The same will go for the Working for Families package seen by one side as caring democracy in action and the other as Nanny state knows best. The election will measure these support camps.
Both major parties will be watchful of landmine issues. For Labour the Building Act and Minister Carter’s steadfast support for his suboptimal department are a risk, as is Mulsim MP Choudry’s views on stoning the gay community. For National, Labour will be hoping Brash accidentally ends up in George W’s corner blindly committing us to years in Iraq.
Either way it promises to be an interesting journey to the polls with some of the small players so close to extinction that desperate measures might trigger electoral shocks. And then there’s the Maori party among whose members are some surprisingly business orientated members. Who knows?
WAYNE BROWN