THE PRESS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1988. Mr Douglas’s future

Press, 20 December 1988, Page 12

THE PRESS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1988. Mr Douglas’s future

The challenge to the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, by the former Minister of Finance, Mr Douglas, is an acceptable action. Challenges for the leadership of a political party are normal and healthy in a democracy. It is not the challenge itself that matters, but what happens afterwards that should be of concern to the country. Will the vote really settle the matter? Probably not, because the issues are deepseated and the people on Mr Lange’s side and on Mr Douglas’s side are too much convinced of the correctness of their beliefs, the rightness of their causes, and the suitability of the personality of their chosen leader to allow much room for compromise. The Government’s economic policy was for a long time characterised by a slogan, “There is no alternative.” The present political struggle is marked by the same sense of exclusivity. If Mr Douglas loses, which seems probable at the moment, will that loss be accepted and will the Labour Government thereafter show some sort of unity and coherence? That is what should happen, for the sake of the whole country. However, Mr Douglas is nothing if not persistent and he has shown that he is prepared to use confidential Government documents to undermine the Prime Minister. No-one can be at a senior level in a Government for as long as Mr Douglas has been there and not be privy to a great body of material that would be embarrassing to the Government if it were released. Mr Douglas is almost certainly in the position to go on making embarrassing disclosures about the Government for the rest of this Parliamentary term. In time he could destroy any faith that people have in Mr Lange and the Labour Government. That would be a sorry path for Mr Douglas to take. His appeal to many New Zealanders has lain in his willingness to disregard short-term political gain for the medium-term or long-term benefit of the country. He did not conform to the unkind stereotype that many New Zealanders have of their politicians. He was believed. A deliberate campaign of destabilising the Government would have a damaging impact on the whole country. If he were now to abandon the principle of putting the country first, in an effort to further his own claim to command the economic direction of the country, it would amount to a departure from the values which he has preached so far. One of the troubles is that the argument about economic management and the pace of change shows some signs of changing into a personal vendetta against Mr Lange by Mr Douglas and by the ally now also on a back bench, Mr Prebble. Like Mr Prebble, Mr Douglas seems to adopt the approach that his own reputation can be built up by destroying someone else’s and by insisting at the same

time that his efforts continue to be for the country’s good. There is also an element of self-justification. Like Sir Robert Muldoon before him, Mr Douglas seems to regard the shape of the New Zealand economy as his personal fiefdom. It should be enough for powerful economic managers to have the modest view that they would like to leave the country in a better condition than that in which they found it. They should not use residual power to try to influence events to create an economic or political crisis, and they should certainly not do so while still wearing the label of the party which gave them power. Mr Douglas changed the course of the economic history of New Zealand. His place in history is assured and he may yet continue his contributions, although it may be a little while before he gets major political recognition again. It is hard to know what is on his immediate and personal political agenda. The establishment of a splinter party appears to be one option. That would certainly hurt the Labour Party; it is far from certain that it would be rewarding for Mr Douglas. The Social Democrats in Britain have scarcely been a successful political force and in New Zealand the establishment of the New Zealand party yielded considerable support at the polls — and not a seat in Parliament. It might do much to ensure that any form of a proportional representation voting system in New Zealand would be postponed indefinitely. What Mr Douglas should do immediately is to try to persuade his Parliamentary Labour colleagues of his own qualifications for the political leadership of the country, and, if he cannot do that, he should refrain from undermining the candidate who retains or gains that leadership. Although Mr Douglas has raised some questions that need addressing on the conduct of the political affairs of New Zealand, he demonstrated ineptitude and naivety in last week’s political crisis. He had failed to read any lessons from the sacking of Mr Prebble such a short time before, and he gave Mr Lange more than an excuse to dispense with him; he gave Mr Lange no option at all. Had he, for instance, taken the whole issue to Cabinet and to the Labour caucus, he might have been in a significantly different position from the one in which he now finds himself. He is a valuable politician and he has worked hard — to the point of frustration as he sees and feels it. His continued value will depend on how he conducts himself in the next few months and on whether he shows any ability to learn from his political inability to take the Cabinet and caucus with him over the last year or so. If he has done better in this than is apparent, a leadership vote will settle the matter.