What an Early-Twenties Man Wants

It's my birthday on Wednesday, which means I get to make a wish. This year I've decided on banishing two things from the English lexicon/conceptual view. Those things are:

1) Eliminating the word "mandate" from the historical record. Down the memory hole, if you will
2) Doing pretty much the same with phrases and confusion regarding "undemocratic", "democratic principles" and the like.

Why do something like that? Well, because every time I hear or read somebody whining about how this or that politician either does not have a "mandate" or is acting "undemocratically" I have this overwhelming desire to find out where he lives and pound his head against a wall for an hour. It's just a pet hate of mine.

I'll give an example of what really gets up my tits. Take the recent election of John Banks to the position of mayor. He came from the National Party, which at least constitutionally is fairly individualistic and small-governmenty. He is a businessman - he started up that wonderful Tony's restaurant on Lorne street. He was a host on Radio Pacific, broadcasting his views on everything for many years. He had a website on his policies, and he gave numerous talks, including at University, on what his policies and priorities would be. Basically, all you needed was a brain stem to realize, with phrases like "the core business of council" and "I'm going to spend council money like it was my own", that he wasn't an avid reader of "Socialist Worker."

Sure enough, partly because he was the only person running, Banks got elected and proceeded to do what he said he was going to do. According to Bill Ralston that is "I don't care about folk music in Mt Eden - give me more motorways and fix the sewerage." The "boy racers" have had some hassles, he's got Bill Birch in to help him define what he views as council's core business, and for some reason unbeknownst to man he still thinks that building more roads will solve traffic problems. As he was quoted in a recent Herald article, "I was elected on the basis of taking a yard broom to the costs associated with running Auckland city."

I'm not saying that you have to like what he does, that's not the point here. What I want to see is people being more careful with terms. You can't say that Banks does not have a mandate because the majority of people who voted, voted for him on the basis that he would do what he said he would do, which he is doing. That may only be 20% of the entire electorate - but it was more than anyone else and that's what matters. As the saying goes, all that is needed for evil to prosper is that good men do nothing - which is just what the vast majority of the electorate did. By not voting they, for all intents and purposes gave their vote (and mandate) to Banks.

The same thing goes with "undemocratic" and "democratic principles" in general. I read a letter to the Herald earlier this week by a penis by the name of Roger Morris saying that Banks' hiring of Bill Birch was "undemocratic." Why? Aren't mayors allowed to hire advisors? Is local government now run by issue-by-issue referenda? No. It's pretty much a zero sum game. You win the mayoralty, you're it for three years. Perhaps Mr Morris means "dishonest" - but that's patent bullshit. As I've said before, you would have to have lived in a cave not to realize what Banks was about, and everyone agrees that he's only doing what he said he would do.

So, that's what I want for my birthday, the great unwashed to think a bit more about what they say. I won't hold my breath though.

--Qohelet.

27/01/02