Enter The Sophocrat: Will the Greens Elect Themselves a Philosopher King?

24
14

image001

DAVID HAY is either a very stupid or a very sinister person.

Only a very stupid person would launch a campaign for the leadership of the third largest party in the New Zealand Parliament this far out from the date at which such leadership issues are decided (Queen’s Birthday Weekend 2014). Only a very stupid person would talk about the Greens needing to put forward their “A-Team” without the members of that team ranged confidently around him. And only a very stupid person would talk about testing the level of support for Russel Norman. Successful politicians never “test” anything. Successful politicians have learned how to count. If they’ve got the numbers they bring their opponent/s down. If they don’t, they STFU.

Now I’m pretty sure that David Hay would bitterly resent being called “a very stupid person”. Ever since 2002 he has been the sole director of a private company called “Sophocrat Limited”. Sophocrat? Well, yes, I wondered too. But, no, it isn’t a made up word. “Sophocracy” means “rule by the wise”. Presumably, Mr Hay chose the name of his little company because he includes himself among the wise who should be ruling.

And, to be fair, he does have an impressive CV. He has a BCom in Economics and a BA in Politics from the University of Auckland, as well as a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from Victoria University’s School of Government. He has worked, variously, for the Treasury; as an independent policy consultant; and as a full-time policy analyst at both the Manukau City Council and (currently) the Auckland super-city. He is fully fluent in Wellington bureaucratese, with many impressive policy papers and parliamentary select committee submissions to his name. In short, Mr Hay shows every sign of not being “a very stupid person” at all – quite the opposite, in fact.

Green Party members do, however, agree that Mr Hay has “a very high opinion of himself” and that he can come across as “arrogant”. Although, it must be said, not to a degree that prevented him from serving on the Green’s Policy Committee, or from being ranked at No. 16 on the Greens’ Party List. Had the Greens fared just a little better in 2011, Mr Hay would now be a Member of Parliament.

So, if Mr Hay is not a “very stupid” person, is he a “very sinister” one?

If by “sinister” we mean someone who is being advanced as the stalking horse of a large, coherent, well-organised and embittered faction within the Green Party; a faction determined to bring down the incumbent Male Co-Leader just five months out from the 2014 General Election; then, no, Mr Hay is not a sinister figure. As far as I can make out, Mr Hay takes after Lee Harvey Oswald – he is a lone assassin. (Which is not to say that lone assassins cannot do a sinister amount of damage!)

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

So, if Mr Hay is not the frontperson for a menacing parliamentary cabal, could it be that what he represents is sinister?

This is a much more apposite question – and the answer just might be: “Yes.”

At the heart of the Green vision is the idea that our world can only now be saved if each of us undertakes a profound reprioritisation of our needs: a radical resizing of human aspirations such that the planet and its processes are accorded a degree of reverence that is at least as great our species’ will to survive. It’s a revolutionary idea, the realisation of which would leave no aspect of our lives unchanged. Revolutionary, also, because the Greens are pledged to achieve all this necessary change without resorting to coercive violence.

But Mr Hay, along with hundreds of like-minded Green Party members, is uncomfortable with all this transformative talk. Rather than accept the title of Green Revolutionary, Mr Hay prefers to describe himself as “Seriously Green”.

“Being Seriously Green”, says Mr Hay, “means taking a thoughtful and considered approach to the strategic challenges we face in the 21st Century and beyond. It means facing up to the reality of these challenges and taking action to respond to them. It means setting aside the divisive politics of the 20th century and working co-operatively for the common good.”

Now, whenever I hear people talking about “setting aside the divisive politics of the 20th century” I start to get worried. And the moment somebody urges me to “work co-operatively for the common good”, I immediately start looking for the people with the guns required to enforce their definitions of “divisive” politics, and of what, exactly, constitutes “the common good”.

It is always that way with “sophocrats”. They make the fatal mistake of believing that the wisdom to rule can only ever be the possession of a tiny elite: an aristocracy of superior talent whose decisions should not be questioned. But the true Green is always to be found among the “democrats”: those who believe in the wisdom of crowds. The system under which the largest possible number of people affected by a decision are also expected to have a hand in making it.

Mr Hay is asking his fellow Greens to signal their readiness for a change in the party leadership by including his name among the top five rankings in the first draft of the Green Party List which is due out in February. If it turns out that he lacks the support to rank that high, then he has promised to withdraw.

Personally speaking, I hope that the Greens, in their collective wisdom, decline Mr Hay’s invitation to elect him as their philosopher king. Self-proclaimed intellectual prowess is seldom to be trusted. As Aristotle so shrewdly put it: “The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.”

24 COMMENTS

  1. I disagree.
    A BCom in economics and working for the Treasury sounds like a very unimpressive CV. What is there to like about that?
    Also, this leadership ‘challenge’ will come and go with nothing changing – Norman will stay leader and the Green Party will be full of smiles and backslapping.
    I think you are confusing a Green leadership challenge with a Labour blood-bath. The former is a PR event where people work together and the latter is a self-mutilating, hate fueled orgy where selfish people wreck the hopes of a nation

  2. Jeeeeesus ! Someone ? Anyone ? Give the man a hair cut I can live with ! OMG !
    And is that a hand knotted hemp tie ? Uuuuuuuggghhh !
    Does he hang with Peter Dunnes barber ? Opps , sorry . I forgot to include ‘ The Right Honourable … ‘ ( Little bit of sick . )

    Further more …
    Me and Aristotle have something in common then .

    I’ve said ” The more I know , the more I know I don’t want to know it . ”

    Remember Tricky Dicky Prebbles book ” I’ve been thinking ” ? ( More sick I’m afraid )

    Well … I’ve been drinking but no amount of drink can dull the impact of that hairstyle . Is that in fact hair ? Or was it once climbing trees and eating native birds before it was run over by a Holden driven by a drunk bogan ? Good on drunk Bogans then , I’d like to shout , if so .

    Nice to have you back Chris Trotter .

  3. “Will the Greens Elect Themselves a Philosopher King?”

    By Chris Trotter

    Why would they do that, when it is not a Philosopher King they need but a Climate Change Churchill. I have seen nothing like that from David Hay.

    In my opinion Norman is closer to that paradigm than Hay.

  4. Maybe, just maybe, Mr Hay does not just want to make hay, maybe he has realised an issue with the present Green leadership?

    What has worried me a bit recently is how the Greens have been “shifting” focus from topic and area to topic and area. They used to be pretty clear cut and focused, but with Russel Norman they started trying to be the “economic experts”, with Metiria they are trying the “social fairness approach”, and with Gareth Hughes it was a lot about dolphins, clean cut environmental feel-good issues.

    There are others amongst them with slightly different focuses, and most making sense, but one wonders at times, with Russel Norman, whether he is not out too much for personal promotion and “headline stuff” topics, that change from week to week.

    This may leave many to wonder what the Greens are all about now. It is difficult to be convincing on economic and financial matters, when at the same time condemning anything that the government does. Even if what the government does compromises the environment here and there, the Greens are walking a tight rope, trying to appear fiscally and economically responsible, but at the same time environmentally puritan.

    Stopping all oil drilling, large scale farming and mining, and enforcing strict environmental conditions all over the country will mean a radical change in economic and other policies. We have been told it is possible, but the detailed plan is missing, so far the Greens are not convincing more than their core voters and supporters.

    That seems to be where Mr Hay tries to jump in, to present a different approach, that may be more convincing to the wider public and voter base, thereby expanding votes and power for the Greens. With his economic and business expertise he may well achieve something. It is a tricky course to take, and it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

    He seems to follow the German Greens, to become more acceptable to the wider voter base, and the mainstream and “centre”. It may work to a degree, but it also carries some serious risks.

    What does it mean to be Greens, that is what many may ask in future.

    • You kind of had me interested until “Even if what the Government does compromises the environment here and there”.

      The Nats in government endorse, encourage and enact wholesale destruction of the environment. They have rushed through so much anti-environment legislation, it’s breathtaking. Environmental indicators of all kinds have worsened since National has been in government. They make the Labour government before them look amazing by comparison – and environmentally, the previous Labour govrnment weren’t amazing.

      Of COURSE the Greens should oppose practically everything the government does, because the current National government is almost entirely sociopathic and anti-environment. I’m not a huge fan of the Greens and I’m still unsure yet whether to vote Labour or Green. But their policy and what they stand for is a lot more cohesive than you seem to think.

      • CRUNCHTIME:
        “The Nats in government endorse, encourage and enact wholesale destruction of the environment. They have rushed through so much anti-environment legislation, it’s breathtaking. Environmental indicators of all kinds have worsened since National has been in government. They make the Labour government before them look amazing by comparison – and environmentally, the previous Labour govrnment weren’t amazing.”

        I do actually agree with you to a large degree. I would not go quite as far though, but the National led government has done almost nothing to address core issues like climate change, water pollution as a consequence of intensified dairying, they are more motorway fans than bus riders, and they even want to bring in large scale oil drilling and coal mining, where fossil fuels are considered main reasons for the global warming taking place.

        It is more ignorance and stupidity, and climate denying, what they can be charged with. It is a lemmings over the cliff direction they follow.

        I have learned now that David Hay is indeed – as Chris indicates – more a self interested lone assassin, trying his luck at stirring up fractions in the membership. It seems to be his last shot at trying to get attention, while he has already been considered to be one on the way out, and off the party list. That is at least what the TV news reported tonight.

        It still leaves me a fair bit worried about the direction of the Greens, who use a lot of feel-good slogans, and who are voted for by many tending to be “left”. Yet Russel Norman and other core MPs and party members are actually quite business friendly, in their own ways, which means, accepting fully private enterprise, although with some “interventionist” framework set around it.

        What I miss is a clearer plan, about how the Greens actually want to transform New Zealand’s economy, to make it more environmentally sound, sustainable, friendlier, and at the same time deliver products and services that can ensure a good living standard for all.

        Geothermal technology development and exports, niche IT service delivery, alternative energy generation, and more public transport instead of continued worship of private motor car travel, that alone will not deliver enough. There is talk about value added products from dairy, horticulture and so, but that means getting farmers and others onto board, and they are a hard lot to convince of a need for change, I tell you.

        So while I am hopeful for the Greens, have actually party voted for them, and consider to do this again, I will in the longer run expect a bit more, and for a start a clearer program and plan, as slogans and feel-good program summaries alone will not make it to deliver on what they want to deliver.

        Yes, Russel is safe for now, and so it seems Metiria is also. There are more on their list, that perhaps deserve to also be in Parliament. The next general election is bound to be very interesting.

        I am also somewhat disillusioned with Labour, and apart from the Greens, there are very few parties I could consider at present.

    • “Even if what the government does compromises the environment here and there

      I really want some of that sauce you’re on.

  5. Mr Hay is doing the Greens and the country a great favour, he is highlighting that every elected position in the Green Party is up for re-election every year by the membership at the AGM , including the co-leader positions. No coups or intrigues needed, just put your name up for a position at the AGM, run a campaign and see how you go. Other parties should take note! That’s how it is done in a real democratic environment. Obviously there is the chance of looking silly challenging one of the few great minds in our parliament, but the Greens will politely keep a straight face and thank him for his commitment – just like I do for the above stated reason.

  6. I heard that David Hay applied to be a candidate. This application was declined by whatever the committee/panel thing it is that decides who and who cannot be Green candidates.

  7. >Now, whenever I hear people talking about “setting aside the divisive politics of the 20th century” I start to get worried. And the moment somebody urges me to “work co-operatively for the common good”, I immediately start looking for the people with the guns required to enforce their definitions of “divisive” politics, and of what, exactly, constitutes “the common good”.

    This is an argument? That whenever you hear a cliche you start to think in cliches?

  8. The question has to be asked ‘why is David Hay challenging for the leadership at this time’. I know exactly why but I cannot disclosed why at this time. But when it does come out people, and in particular the membership of the Greens, will see his behaviour for what it is – shallow and totally self-serving. David Hay has just poked himself is the eye with a pointy stick!

  9. Just when I started to have confidence in the GP as a viable alternative, along comes one of those over-ambitious fcukwits to go stuff it all up!
    Big difference too between ‘intelligence’, and having a clue or two.
    It’s a bonus when you discover people with both (such as MT and RN).
    We’ll see whether the GP has a death wish a la Labour in recent times.
    I’m sure the man is very ‘nice’ though (with the best of intentions residing somewhere a bit behind his personal ambition).

    I might be a bit like Countryboy – I wouldn’t pick him up if he were hitch hiking

  10. Mr Hay needs to remember it has been the strong, focused leadership team of Russel Norman and Metiria Turei which has built up the NZ Greens’ profile, to become NZ’s third largest political party. Norman has done a suburb job, since taking over the leadership from the late Rod Donald.

    Now that the party is a credible political force, with growing support, this Johnny-come-lately David Hay, wants to cash in, after the hard graft has been done. A leader? I think not. More a frustrated list member, making noises to get himself heard, hoping like hell he can make it into parliament!

    Go Russel Norman and Metiria Turei. A great team leading a progressive NZ Greens towards future prosperity for NZ. Norman and Turei’s time isn’t over yet. In fact, I’d say they are just beginning! Watch them in Parliament. They are dynamite at challenging government!

  11. I have no problem with Hay’s haircut. Even if it is a bit tidy for my tastes, I’m a strong believer in “different strokes” when it comes to personal style.

    What does bother me is Hay’s political style. From Chris’ description, Hay sounds like the Greens equivalent of Grant Robertson, an affable career bureaucrat ready to bend with whichever direction the political winds are blowing. It’s because of such people, who think that growing the vote is more important than policies which fit principles, that the Rogernomes have been allowed to stay in control of the Labour party since 1984 (Helen Clark and Phil Goff were both cabinet ministers in the 1980s Labour government).

    It’s because such people have become more and more dominant in the Greens over the last couple of terms that I’ve become more and more skeptical about them, despite having great respect for many of the activists who remain aligned to them. I hope the Greens membership politely show Hay and similar passionless, middle-of-the-road types to the tail end of the party list.

  12. It sounds like the faction of the Green movement that used to be in the “Progressive Greens” party (ie those Greens that were pro-free market). They had their 15 minutes of fame in the mid-90s, maybe they want more? All it would achieve is giving National another potential coalition partner. :/

  13. I thought it was all about David Hay and the Greens!

    Suddenly, there was John Key with Bill English and Steven Joyce; “They make the fatal mistake of believing that the wisdom to rule can only ever be the possession of a tiny elite: an aristocracy of superior talent whose decisions should not be questioned.”

  14. David Hay lays out his reasons for his challenge in a Q. & A. format.

    http://www.sophocrat.co.nz/david-hay/blog

    In my opinion this speaks for itself. In that David does not mention any of the issues he has with the current leadership, that he thinks he could do better at.

    He does mention a “big game” but what is it? And how is it different, or better, than the current Green Party direction?
    David Hay says the big game has to move New Zealand to a zero carbon economy within the next few decades but how? What’s his program?

    I am sorry, but to be more than just a meaningless political slogan a big game would require some sort of strategy to implement it. David needs to articulate what it is. If David Hay does have some good strategic ideas, has he talked to anyone else about them, has he passed them on to the current leadership? Have they refused to listen to him, is that why he challenging for the leadership?

    Maybe further into his leadership campaign David Hay will articulate his “Big Game” I hope so.

    David Hay says that he is not critical of Russell Norman. If so…. Then why the hell is he standing against him?

    I would love to be proved wrong and will apologise profusely to David if I am. But I afraid to say, my first impression is that we are seeing an unfortunate and ill advised move by someone with nothing new to offer, who is just trying to advance himself, if not to the leadership at least further up the party list.

    Until David Hay can show me a program I can believe in (or even one I don’t agree with), this unfortunately will remain my opinion.

    I have spent a small amount of time in David’s company and seen him working up close and while I appreciate his efforts nothing that I have seen (so far) has convinced me that he is marked out for leadership.

Comments are closed.