Symbolism over substance is a well-established political art. Sometimes symbolism is a substitute for decisive action, sometimes it is a way of signalling a future policy intent that for various reasons cannot yet be achieved. On other occasions, it is a simple diversionary tactic, designed to distract attention from policy failure elsewhere.
A
recent good example of symbolism over substance is New Zealand First’s proposed
Bill to ban the display of any flag or emblem other than the New Zealand flag
on government buildings. This is all part of New Zealand First’s “war on woke”
and is obviously aimed at prohibiting the display of Tino Rangatiratanga and
LGTBQ flags on public buildings, something its anti-woke constituency would
likely approve of.
But
whatever one thinks of that policy, it hardly requires an Act of Parliament to
achieve it. A directive to relevant chief executives would do just as well, but
that would remove the drama of dealing with such a non-issue by legislation,
which would in turn detract from the public attention the policy is seeking to
gain.
It
is reminiscent of the early 1980s when the then Education Minister Merv
Wellington became obsessed with every school having a flagpole and flying the
New Zealand flag daily. He even went as far as promulgating Regulations setting
out the dimensions and material of the flag and specific rules about its
display. Rather than being seen as an assertion of national spirit and
patriotism, as the Minister hoped, the policy quickly became an object of ridicule,
detracting from the many more serious educational issues around at the time.
Once he was no longer Minister, the policy disappeared.
If
history is any guide, New Zealand First’s flag policy, should it even make it
to legislation, will not survive either. But it will reinforce New Zealand
First's credentials with the “anti-woke” brigade it is seeking to appeal to, in
just the same way its earlier, but never implemented, policy on gender-specific
toilet access was designed to.
But
New Zealand First are not the only party playing the symbolism over substance
card. Earlier this week National announced plans for an instant fines approach
to dealing with shoplifters. The rhetoric was strong, but the details and the
timing remain vague. Not surprisingly though, the plan has been widely welcomed
by small businesses who have been adversely affected by increasing shoplifting
levels in recent years. For many, the symbolic effect was enough – at last the
government was recognising there was a problem to be resolved.
However,
it is still far from clear how the instant fines system being suggested will
work (a correspondent to Wellington’s Post asked how people who resorted to
shoplifting because they could not afford to pay could cope with an instant
fine), or what level of Police resources will be dedicated to it. And nor it is
clear when the necessary legislation will be introduced and passed.
Still,
it all looks like strong government, even if the details are still uncertain.
And so, it serves its political point, which was, after all, the primary
objective. The government has put its stake in the ground, and, even better
from its point of view, entrapped the Opposition into opposing it. It has won
the symbolism battle on shoplifting, but it remains to be seen whether it will
be as successful with the substance.
The
other side of this coin is when politicians refuse to acknowledge the substance
of an issue and wallow instead in the symbolism surrounding it. In an
extraordinary outburst this week, the normally considered Chris Hipkins told a
radio host that the reason ram raids were no longer a media issue was because “your
Tory owners at NZME have just decided not to put it on the front page anymore.
It’s still happening, it’s just NZME have decided that it’s not in the
Government’s best interests and they do the National Party’s singing for them
and so they’re not covering it as much anymore.”
Unfortunately
for Hipkins the facts tell a different story. In 2022, there were 714 ram raids
reported. The following year – when Hipkins was Prime Minister – that figure
dropped to 495. However so far this year it sits at just 45, a more than 90% fall
on the figure of Hipkins’ time. That, not media ownership prejudice, is the
reason they are not getting the coverage they used to, but Hipkins will be
hoping his media bashing will resonate with his die-hard supporters and so
detract attention from the facts.
The
danger here is not so much that politicians favour symbolism over substance
from time to time. That is part and parcel of the political game which every
politician engages in when it suits them. The problem is when the politician is
revealed to have no other modus operandi than symbolism over substance, and
when that becomes their sole end.
Voters
quickly spot such cant and discount those politicians accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment