Ward representation for Christchurch

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32537, 22 February 1971, Page 12

Ward representation for Christchurch

For many years “ The Press ” has advocated the ward system for the election of members of the Christchurch City Council. Dr R. J. Johnston, of the University of Canterbury geography department, espouses the same cause in an article in the “New Zealand Monthly Review”. Dr Johnston’s purpose in his article is to improve the working and appearance of democracy; rightly, he does not suggest that the council’s rating or spending should be related to the proposed wards. As “The Press” has said before, the argument for a ward system of representation gathers weight as a city grows. Although Christchurch City does not yet have the 130,000 voters mentioned by Dr Johnston, the number is about 85,000; if any rational amalgamation of local authorities can be obtained in the near future the number of voters will soon be much larger. Ward representation need not lead to parochialism: local body representatives who are already elected from wards soon recognise that ward boundaries are artificial and that their responsibilities to the whole electorate are paramount. The example of Parliamentarians shows that concern for local interest and responsibility for the national interest are not incompatible. Most important, under a ward system there is a clearer and closer link between citizens and council in the personal and individual attention of particular representatives. The distance that can grow between electors and elected authority is probably the most serious threat to democratic government as an electorate grows larger. Electors become either apathetic or mistrustful; representatives begin to lack confidence in their electoral support because they are no longer capable of testing public opinion. The result might be a lack of decisive government in some hands and authoritarian and insensitive rule in others.

The ward system of representation is not without disadvantages: one is that the politician whose value to the whole community is considerable might not secure the support of a small group. Generally, however, electors are wise enough not to discard the services of man or woman of proven value to the community. On balance, the ward system has much to commend it. When local body organisation in Christchurch is being reviewed, this system of election should find a place in any new scheme, not to reduce uneasiness about amalgamation but because of the system’s virtues in meeting the needs of a large electorate.