Link to an article in the title from the dodgy stuff.co.nz site about a dodgy pole that says people do not want further tax cuts if the Government has to borrow to be able to afford them.
Anyhow, in a wee debate with Amir on the article, his points led me to an interesting question. Do tough economic times serve to weaken or strengthen the position of the current Government?
Instinct, for me at least, would say it serves to weaken the Governments position. People become disillusioned because they are less well off and look to other solutions right? (Potential breeding ground for Fascism).
But then what about stability. In a tough economic period you don't want your government to be chopping and changing often, with new politicians bringing in new pet policies every three years. Surely a stable Government (Democratic or not) who provide a sense of security is preferable. Thus people could actually be more worried about change because things may be bad now, but they could be even worse if you change government. So its quite possible that a tough situation for the economy may result in the longer periods of rule (Democratic or otherwise).
This is a very foetus like argument and as such there are many other points to be made here. So go for it, Do tough economic times serve to strengthen or weaken the position of the current government?
P.s Just because it is the holidays is no excuse not to write on a blog for a 200 Level Pols course. Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
I agree with you that tougher economic times generally weaken the position of the current government. People will always look for someone to blame. I also agree that stable and long-term governments are probably better for the country during bad economic times rather than frequent changes of governments.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as we have discussed in the past, just because it is the best thing for people, does not mean they will do it. I believe that regardless of how good the government is, during bad economic times people will be far more likely to vote that government out.
Then again, as someone mentioned in a previous post, FDR won 4 elections in the US, several of which were during the great depression. I guess that just shows that stable government IS possible during a depression, just not likely.
To continue the example of US politics, consider the recent Presidential election: some analysts believe that it was the current economic crisis that tipped the scales in favour of Obama and doomed the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteBut the current economic crisis did not just happen overnight, and was not the fault of the previous Bush administration. While certain economic policies by the Bush administration would not have helped, this crisis has been building up over the last decade as deregulation became the new fashion.
In this case, the previous government was blamed even if it was not entirely to blame.
FDR won four elections (1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944), although one must factor in WWII. It does seem logical to suggest that he was reelected in 1940 and 1944 because changing Presidents during a global war might not be conducive to stability.
Quite agree with the both of you. But take a situation such as we have it here in NZ.
ReplyDeleteNational have just been elected so cannot hold any real blame for the current economic situation (not that it can really be given to any NZ Govt as NZ rather floats along with the floods and droughts of the great economic river (I made that one up myself, nice eh?). And the policy that if times are bad, it is better to keep the devil you know, then the devil you don't know. So even if people don't really like the current Govt in 3-6-9 years time, they may still vote for them in the next election because they vote for security. Which would then lead to the interesting question of whether or not people in troubled times are more likely to look to democratic or dictatorial leadership? The phrase desperate times call for desperate measures ring a bell?
So do people prefer stability over change? Current Govt over new Govt? Dictatorship over Democracy?
Hmmmm
Well considering that National was elected in the face of this economic crisis, what does that show?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't necessarily mean that voters chose change over stability, since National has become quite centrist (and closer to Labour) under the leadership of John Key.
You can think about this in terms of the ways in which governments maintain their support. Does an economic crisis reduce the amount of resources available to the government for keeping their key supporters happy?
ReplyDeletei think that bad economic situations do leed to changes in government because people look for a solution to the crisis and that if say the opposition government like offers solutions that the governing party is not offering people will vote for the opposition party. Like here in NZ with our recent election.
ReplyDeleteAlso look at America in the 1930's with Franklin D roosevelt coming to power during the great depression as he offered solutions to the crisis and he was elected. Not just democratic regimes but also revolutions occur out of economic crisis, look at Russia before the 1917 revolution a backwards country where most people lived in poverty, people wanted change.
In conclusion economic crises do serve to weaken the current government.
i don't think that it was the wisest decision for people to vote for national party so eagerly as for example in giving the public tax cuts it is unrealistic to offer such high ones as the National party did. Other parts of government will be effected such as the healthcare sector soial welfare etc. Once these branches of govenrment become scarcer and receive less money people will look for change again and most likely give their vote to Labour. That is how politics works.
paragraphs wrong way round, my bad people
ReplyDelete