A Reappraisal of New Zealand's Parliamentary Democracy : From Majoritarian to Consensus?

Abstract

This paper discusses the historical evolution of the New Zealand parliamentary system from the mid-19^<th> century to the present time. The leading expert in the area of comparative politics, Arend Lihphart, suggests us that there are two models of democracy: majoritarian and consensus. New Zealand initially looked more like the latter in due to its idyllic political landscape. Then, over a period of time, power was increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few men in the central institutions, embodied by the prime minister and the cabinet. New Zealand has had no written constitution which needs a special requirement to be amended. The first-past-the-post electoral system eventually fortified the stable two-party system, in which either Labour or National wins majority seats in its unicameral Parliament. However, it seems that New Zealand is now moving towards the consensus model, in which grave decisions are made by a greater number of players through negotiations and compromises. This is partly due to the introduction of MMP (mixed member proportional) representation in the mid-90s. Neither of the old-line political parties can come to enjoy the majority in Parliament without the assistance of some minor parties. The 1990 Bill of Rights has indeed brought some significant change to the style of politics in New Zealand. A sheer majority viewpoint is subject to the judiciary's legally profound interpretation. Having long been a docile organisation for the government, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was given a free rein in conduction its duties such as control of the volume of currency (NZ $) and providing stability in general levels of prices in 1989.