Sign In / Register
If the past fortnight in politics were an episode of Friends, it might be called The One Where Everyone Took Offence.
Politics has never been gentle, but social media now magnifies every word, expression and gesture, often stripping away context in the process. I don’t envy elected representatives the scrutiny they face. I know I’d struggle to tolerate it.
However, there is an old adage among journalists: if you do not want to appear on the front page, don’t do things likely to put you there.
Ratepayers are entitled to expect two things from their representatives – a basic level of civility, and confidence that councillors can disagree without fearing that dissent will cost them influence or responsibility.
A mayor is entitled to appoint committee chairs and assemble a leadership team capable of advancing an agreed programme. Equally, councillors are not elected simply to endorse the mayor’s position. They are there to represent their communities, exercise independent judgement and consider the interests of Auckland as a whole.
When changes in responsibility follow contentious votes, residents are entitled to ask whether those decisions were based on performance or political loyalty.
That distinction matters. If a councillor loses a position because of poor performance, the reasons should be clear. If the change appears to follow an opposing vote, there is a risk residents will conclude that disagreement itself is being penalised. Their concern will not be only for the councillor, but for whether the views of the people who elected that councillor are still being heard.
My experience of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board offers a useful contrast. I make a point of attending monthly meetings and, while there may be frustrations and tensions behind the scenes, its public meetings are well-managed and allow for rigorous questioning and debate.
Members frequently disagree, but those differences are usually handled respectfully, and they are given the time to question proposals and explain their positions. The board is also easily accessible to residents and responsive to media inquiries.
That matters. Democracy depends not only on the decisions that are reached, but also on people believing they have been heard and that opposing views have been properly considered.
There is a principle in creative work that also applies to politics: we are not our ideas. When we identify too closely with a proposal or policy, a challenge to that idea can feel like a personal attack.
Healthy organisations need healthy feedback systems and recent events at Auckland Council raise legitimate questions about whether those systems are working as they should.
Ratepayers should judge councillors not only by the policies they support, but also by how they conduct themselves and respond to dissent. Residents who are concerned should ask their councillors how they voted, why they reached that decision and whether they feel free to disagree with the mayor when their judgement or the interests of their ward require it.
Adrienne Kohler, editor
