It may be "divisive", but its democracy

The National party's "born to rule" attitude seems to extend even to matters within their own party, with Clem Simich objecting to fighting a selection battle for his safe Tamaki seat as being "divisive for the party".

Simich is one of National's better MPs - he's experienced, doesn't make a fool of himself by braying about "communism" every time he opens his mouth, and voted for the Civil Unions Bill. But none of that should provide him any immunity against a selection battle. The core idea behind democracy is that our rulers should have to justify themselves to us. If National has any commitment to internal democracy, then it should apply that principle. I have no doubt that Simich can justify himself - like I said, he's one of National's better MPs - but he should still have to do it.

Is this "divisive"? Only if they let it be. But the principle of democracy is more important. If Simich is unwilling to face even the scrutiny of his own party, then it says a great deal about the attitudes of that party to the rest of us.