By Chris Trotter*
Perhaps the greatest service Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald rendered the Greens was making New Zealanders believe they were democrats. Their engaging personalities and considerable political skills masked the fact that Green politics has never been (and likely never will be) democratic. The whole ethos of the Green movement, here and overseas, is minoritarian. By concealing that fact, Jeanette and Rod made the Greens electorally viable.
What happened to James Shaw on Saturday, however, has exposed the Greens’ minoritarian political culture for all to see. Once voters grasp the enormity of 30% of Green delegates to the Green AGM being constitutionally empowered to overrule the wishes of the 70% of delegates backing Shaw – an overwhelming majority – the party faces electoral death.
But, why minoritarianism? Partly, the Greens loathing of majorities is attributable to the social milieu out of which the green movement arose, but mostly it is based on their unshakeable conviction that their view of the world is the only correct view, and that, unfortunately, most of the human species are simply too stupid to recognise the fact. Greens are elitists – and proud of it.
If challenged on this point, the Greens will point out that they were the ones who first recognised the existential threat posed by climate change – and that was long before the mainstream parties were even willing to fully acknowledge its reality. They will remind us that it was the Greens who first recognised how seriously corporate mendacity had compromised the fruits of genetic engineering. Who, they will demand, were the first to elect co-leaders and make their party te Tiriti centric? The list goes on and on. As Rod Donald was fond of reminding New Zealanders: The Greens are not on the Left, the Greens are not on the Right. The Greens are out in front.”
All very well and good – until the seers and prophets responsible for this farsighted vanguardism are presented with the practical difficulties of running a political party aspiring to electoral viability. At that point it becomes necessary to find a way to prevent the purity of the party’s principles and policies from being forced to endure the lowest-common-denominator arbitration inherent in the crude majoritarianism of democratic decision-making.
The Greens’ solution to this problem was the adoption of “consensus-based” decision-making. Superficially, this sounded super-democratic. Rather than allow 51% of the party to dominate the remaining 49%, the Greens would do all within their power to ensure that their principles and policies enjoyed the broadest possible agreement.
Few voters, however, bothered to follow the logic of the Greens’ argument right through. If they had, it would very soon have become obvious that “consensus-based” decision-making allows the faction composed of the party leadership and its hangers-on to exercise a veto over the party’s ultimate direction. Unwilling to embarrass or challenge the people in charge, party delegates could be prevailed upon to delay, postpone, or simply compromise out of all recognition, proposals supported by a clear majority of the membership.
Should the veto-wielding minority prove intransigent, however, constitutional provision was made for the blocking of consensus to be over-ridden by a supermajority vote of 75% + 1. Turn that around, of course, and you have conferred veto powers on 25% + 1 of the members and their delegates.
This is hardly a recipe for genuine consensus, more a guarantee of simmering resentments and ceaseless factional manoeuvring. It is also, presumably, the reason why the constitutional provision which laid James Shaw’s hopes low on Saturday was approved. If a minority leadership clique could exercise its veto over the wishes of the rank-and-file majority, then it was only fair that a rank-and-file minority of just 25% + 1 could negate the unopposed candidacy of an incumbent co-leader with upwards of 70% membership support.
That a constitution permitting such antics was entirely unsuited to a political party seeking genuine political influence – up to and including Cabinet positions – does not appear to have occurred to either the people who drafted it, or the members who voted for it.
What it does point to, however, is a party unwilling to embrace the brute realities of parliamentary politics. There is absolutely no point in making its MPs available for Cabinet posts, if a quarter of a party’s members are resolutely opposed to its MPs engaging in the delicate business of building cross-party support, accepting the compromises inherent in coalition politics, negotiating in good faith with those interest groups most directly affected by proposed policy changes, and otherwise engaging in the “art of the possible” that is democratic politics.
It is simply astonishing that James Shaw, who has demonstrated considerable political skill in securing the support of four out of the five parliamentary parties for the Government’s climate change legislation, could be treated so appallingly by an intransigent minority of the Greens’ membership for doing precisely what 70% of the party asked him to do.
Nor is it just the abusive conduct directed against Shaw personally that is astonishing. Even worse is the message sent by the 30% of delegates who voted to re-open his nomination. Clearly, they are not in the least bit concerned what the rest of the country makes of their actions. The single most important lesson of party politics: that disunity is death; has failed to sink in.
With most of Shaw’s opponents supposedly located in the “Youth Wing” of the Greens, it must be assumed that the example of the Alliance is too far in the past to offer these children any guide as to what happens to a small political party which very publicly attacks its leader and then proceeds to tear itself apart.
And it simply will not do to explain away the self-destructive character of their decision by referencing the anger and despair of the generations destined to endure the worst effects of global warming. If the urgency of the climate crisis has already passed beyond the capacity of parliamentary politics-as-usual, then come out honestly and say so. Let the Greens’ Youth Wing put it to their party membership that there must be no more coalitions, no more compromises, no more democracy. Let them ask the electorate instead for the equivalent of wartime powers to fight the greatest threat to human survival since the last Ice Age.
They should be prepared, however, for considerably more of the Greens’ membership than 25% to reject such a policy. More importantly, they should be prepared for something pretty close to 75% of the New Zealand electorate to signal their willingness to stand up and fight for democracy.
If the only reason “the Greens are out in front” is because nobody else is willing to go anywhere near them, then Rod Donald’s bold assertion is no longer a boast – it’s an epitaph.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
107 Comments
The greens have two leaders: James Shaw, well known, respected and pragmatic, and Marama Davidson who seems much less well known and pragmatic but happens to be female and Māori. I have no idea why they are trying to axe their best candidate, and why they don't have their second best, Chloe as joint leader.
"Pragmatic" - not so sure, but he seems to fit into the political environment quite well. However as to the Green policies he's espoused, they are not particularly pragmatic, but I see them as 'politically acceptable', in other words he is not really rocking the boat, which will be why he has raised the ire of the Greens rank and file. Marama on the other hand is hard to read. My view is that she brings some dignity to the role and party which can be extremely important.
The greens currently have no power so it is very hard for them to rock the boat. They either have to take what they can get (pragmatic) or have no say whatsoever (rock the boat but can't achieve anything).
Even if they do hold the balance of power they will still struggle to rock the boat much as they are always going to go with Labour.
Racist & sexist true but add to that elitist as Mr Trotter ably describes. Delusions of grandeur might do just as well in fact. So the facade of the party, and very obviously what is entrenched behind it, reverts to the image of looney ladies of the left. God defend New Zealand if any of this body should ever get as far as cabinet in any government.
You really can't be modern, liberal and environmentally focused at the same time. A modern environmentalist believes that that there is a perpetual climate emergency and we must all "cooperate" and "work together" to solve it. Emergency powers are justified and cooperation can not be optional (unless your country is outside the western class system and in that case you can be ignored). Environmentalism has been co opted for the latest intellectual power grab and there is no room for the genuine version of it.
A modern environmentalist believes in technological solutions to environmental problems. These people are not modern. They are luddites.
They also seem to think that any suggestion of the non-western world doing something about their out of control population growth is "racist".
Nobody is claiming that tech will solve all our environmental problems. But it can and will have much more of an impact than lecturing at other people to go without.
The green loonies always seem to be very against the most important tech that could reduce humanities footprint. Nuclear. Genetic Engineering. Birth control.
Tech solutions will generally reduce environmental impact. They generally don't "solve" problems by reducing to environmental impact to zero.
There is still HUGE room for improvement with tech to make us much much more efficient with the resource and energy that we use. I work on an aspect of this for my day job.
Too many people is a philisophical and subjective argument. Perhaps there are too many of the wrong people.
It's unlikely tech-optimism will solve our problems with no cuts to our creation of the problems. Not talking population, just pointing out that environmentalists would generally subscribe to a combination of reducing the creation of problems rather than only trying to fix the problems with technology. E.g. reduce the flow of plastics into the environment and foodchain, don't just rely on a technological answer to come along to remove it afterwards.
Not to say that technology cannot mitigate creation of pollution.
I was referring to climate change being a holistic global problem yet environmentalists are always focused on domestic policy. They never talk about going to war or sanctioning countries still putting in coal power. I don't know how you read that as population control.
There are many ways currently fit under the banner of environmentalism, "believ[ing] in technological solutions to environmental problems" is just another camp trying to claim ideological purity.
What? Do you mean NZ could be carbon neutral and we could be virtuous world leaders (or something)? or is that greens with a lowercase g?
Our contribution to climate change is negligible, no amount of nuclear here changes anything directly. This kind of domestic thinking is what I was referring to above.
A modern environmentalist believes what the vast majority of climate scientists believe: that we are indeed on the brink of a climate emergency, if we are not already there.
A liberal modern environmentalist strives to find an acceptable balance of liberal (notably, property) rights that are compatible with this fact.
As usual, a veneer of equality/equity is used to entrench a vested interest; namely, an almost achievement-less leader, and to push out one that has managed to gain cross-party support on a high profile piece of legislation. It should be called for what it is: corruption. But the whole 'not fit to govern' thing never seems to get applied to the Greens, who by virtue of never even bothering to negotiate with National, should simply be regarded as an extremist wing of the Labour Party.
Election night 2020 & Labour had been returned with an unprecedented outright majority. Even before the ballot boxes had been stashed away, the Green’s co-leader, the surviving one now that is, spouted I expect to be in cabinet, or words to that effect. Blimey! That was enough for me. No thanks. As said above, delusions of grandeur.
Plus their leaning towards the legitimization of drug use makes for a reprehensible sort of organization.
They want to legalize cannabis, a relatively safe drug that is already widely used, and that more and more countries including recently Germany and Thailand have legalized. This is hardly revolutionary. It is in fact the most intelligent thing to do based on the risk of harm vs the risks of prohibition.
More and more I'm coming round to the idea that if a drug has a reasonable safety profile and is widely used already it should be fully legalised.
That way the government can get revenue from the sales, rather than the gangs, and we won't have the situation where people die from taking drugs contaminated with fentanyl.
This is exactly what addiction medicine specialists have been saying for years. Prohibition causes far more harm than legalization and regulation. A lot of governments are just too gutless to actually adopt evidence-based drug policies because of people's ignorance and simplistic thinking of 'drugs are bad'.
One of these things is not like the other... I presume you don't drink then? Like it or not, recreational drug use is happening, and has been since humans discovered them. We have a choice as a society whether we treat it as a criminal issue or a health issue. Personally, I find it 'reprehensible' that drugs with relatively low physical and social harm such as cannabis and MDMA are illegal and carry criminal repercussions, whereas harmful carcinogenic drugs such as alcohol are freely available.
wrong.
https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-emissi…
some good interactive data breakdowns here: https://emissionstracker.environment.govt.nz/#NrAMBoGYF12BGcAiAcgUwC5Ns…
Electricity and heat (total - not just coal power plants) 3500 kilotonnes
Transport 15000 kilotonnes
New Zealand is an inconsequential pacific island that doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things.
In a global context, around 1/3 of historical emissions have come from burning coal for electricity and the Green movement, worldwide, has fought tooth and nail against nuclear energy since the 1970s.
The Greens in New Zealand were one of the hardest virtue signallers in that department though.
The climate catastrophie is on their hands.
The radical side of the greens will be their demise. Shaw has been a hard working MP and what is wrong with working on consensus with other parties. I would have thought that was the right direction if the aim is to have long standing climate objectives.
Trotter is right in the views he states.
You forgot to mention Genter who as then-associate transport minister "forced" Twyford to meddle in local council affairs and get WCC to scrap its plans to widen tunnel roads.
She then fought hard to block OIA requests seeking the letter she wrote to Twyford discussing the matter.
She also sat back while Light Rail/rapid transit in Auckland spiraled out of control and the Greens were almost totally silent on the lack of progress from 2017 - 2020.
Yet was prepared to go to war with everyone under the sun over a letter about something in Wellington. An odd choice of priorities for a supposedly passionate PT advocate.
Interesting that they started off pro-nuclear then - at least, according to this article - NIMBYism played a role in a pivot that then had a domino effect: https://environmentalprogress.org/why-clean-energy-is-in-crisis/ But now, many environmentalists have gone back to being pro-nuclear.
Huh...this one on fossil fuel speculators' involvement is interesting too: https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/4/10/billionaire-energy…
"to endure the worst effects of global warming"
Bollocks, Mr Trotter.
The Greens may be as myopic as you, but the reality is that they - and we all - are staring down the barrel of a Limits-to-Growth collapse.
Try watching Planet of the Humans (youtube). Then pen a bigger piece.
PDK be fair. In this Trotter is essentially correct. But the article is about the structure of the Greens Party and the attitude of its members.
But you are also correct in that the Greens are essentially disconnected from reality. Those of the rank and file who are expressing their dissatisfaction with Shaw are none the less living a somewhat comfortable lifestyle by consuming energy that the planet and human race cannot afford - and they are in denial of that. But they are also in denial of what NZ can achieve with respect to climate change. It has long been acknowledged that at less than 1% of the total output of GHGs on the planet, any change in NZ's contribution will be entirely unnoticed and will not affect the outcome one iota. Moral leadership means nothing if the major powers do not take notice and follow, which they will not do. It is this attitude that will deny them the influence they desire. They do not and apparently will not chart a pragmatic course that will enable an economic out come that would be fair. They have not initiated a debate on population size and the inevitable demands for energy and resources. They demand that no money be spent on roads, yet will not admit that their future has to mean that any travel will be shank's pony (human powered or not at all). and the list goes on. CT is correct, they are elitists who seem to believe they will not have to abide by the constraints they would impose on everyone else, and in this small fact they are then dangerous.
Got the trots reading this.
This party was at points commanding near 15% in polling but can never make it stick. Shaw is an uncomfortable part of a self hypocrisy that needs to be dealt with. That and lacks the teeth needed in minority politics to get wins for the party, they've been walked allover in these coalitions and been absolute limp biscuits.
Throw some youth up the front and fire up the engine. No more of this green conservatism.
There's plenty of insecurity in every group. To single out one identifies your own. The real issue is democracy or the lack of it. Democracy is supposed to ensure that everyone in society gets to participate fairly. That includes having opportunities and economic benefit. But 'power brokers', players and pretenders all endeavour to influence things to favour their particular interests. Human society has been that way for centuries and occasionally and rarely a politician tries to drive things to where this should occur, but the numbers generally run against them. Interestingly CT here highlights a circumstance where a supposedly 'democratic' political party can be derailed by a minority group. A group which doesn't appear to understand the consequences of their own actions if they were to succeed.
Not true. I can say until I am blue in the face that the only thing that democracy is, is majority rules. Nothing else. neither fair or unfair. Neither moral or immoral. Neither decent or horrible. Just majority rules. Anything else is literally something else. How is this so hard for some people to take in, even though they have been told a million times?
"they've been walked allover in these coalitions and been absolute limp biscuits. "
That's because they always sign confidence and supply agreement's before an election, and never enter into valid coalition negotiations after the election.
They are now holding Shaw responsible for their own stupid party ideals.
Further proof the Greens have never understood MMP.
Ironically the current co-leader, and co-leader heir apparent have little to say about Environmental issues, while a lot to say about Social Justice issues.
Have the greens just dug themselves a bigger hole?
Will a real teal party emerge?
Every political party has its lunatic fringe, but mostly they are in no position to do much real damage. The Greens appear to be different with a substantial minority quite prepared to burn the house down with them inside it.
I think that's a shame as I want to have a strong environmental voice in parliament, but I think Chris trotter might be right and we will see their presence much diminished come the election.
Te Pāti is another example of the lunatic fringe running the show. A co-leader joked at a conference last week about poisoning Seymour's drink in Parliament and called ACT "the white settler party".
Thanks to these lunatics and our toothless leadership, NZ is quickly sprinting down the path of dirty politics.
Now translate this example of the Greens "consensus" voting practice to what it would mean should they, Labour & the Maori party continue down the He PuaPua "co-governance" agenda.
First they came for the capitalists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a capitalist.
Then they came for the homeowners, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a homeowner.
Then they came for the men, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a man.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
- With apologies to Martin Niemuller
This is reflective of the way all democracies are going with 95% of the conversation on all issues being taken up by the 5% minority. I just keep my head down and shut up as I can't be bothered arguing with the 5% minority on every issue. This is just another case of the minority shouting louder than the majority.
Your point extends to the situation in local body politics whereby the elected representation is skewed by a poor percentage of electorate turn out. For example if only 30% of voters actually vote then a minority interest that organises well and turns out and votes full strength for their candidates then that will hold sway. Big fish in small pond scenario, only need to get 51% of 30%.
For once, it is a valid critique of the Greens. But the only reason Chris is seething so hard is Labour has now lost its partner party to purity spiraling liberal extremists.
But the time for the "moderate" centre is fading as the moderate centre has become incapable of producing new ideas or providing appropriate solutions to the problems at hand.
The fact is the reforms which were concessions to the masses in the 30s and after ww2 had far more to do with the power of revolutionary groups challenging the rulers of this society. The New Deal concessions in the 30s only came from FDR to combat the rise of Huey Long, even the Labour government reforms of the late 30s came only after the establishment Conservatives failed to beat the depression. The post WW2 equity reforms were needed because hundreds of thousands if not millions of men had been armed and trained to engage in brutal conventional warfare and would not be afraid of the policeman's baton or bullet in getting what they wanted, so huge concessions were made to the masses for better living conditions to prevent them overthrowing the government.
Fundamentally the system only gives concessions if it is afraid of the masses.
Cos all the other parties are so full of normal people , and are so united. Some of our posters seem to have an obession with testicles too.
It was actually less than 30% because not all delegates voted. I do agree it seems a stupid rule.
This is all about positioning for the next election. I doubt Shaw will be beaten , or even if that is the intent.
This goes back to the Alliance days , with Anderton ruling over the Greens , and pretty much everyone else.
Then Clarke shafting Fitzsimons , and then NZ First grabbing the limelight in 2017.
"Some of our posters seem to have an obession with testicles too" - I don't think that is true, I think it is just a desire for equality to work both ways. If James Shaw is the best or second best person for the job which most people would say he is, then he should be co leader regardless of his testicles.
Let them ask the electorate instead for the equivalent of wartime powers to fight the greatest threat to human survival since the last Ice Age.
What in earth difference is this going to make? No doubt those with these extreme views would be the last to actually live by their words.
If the current government tried to pull that stunt they would be thrown out forthwith. Remember that they only got back in by a combination of Covid sympathy for them, and hiding the 3/2 waters from us and Winston. just to clarify, I heard that 3 had been reduced to 2, but it may be down to 1 or even 0 by now. Who would know with this bunch?
Time has caught up with James Shaw. He started off with two crosses against him, namely being pale and male, but now at 49 years of age, they have decided he is also now stale (I always wondered where the cut-off line was).
Shaw is comparable to Boxer the horse in Animal Farm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_(Animal_Farm) albeit that he is more educated.
But education, hard work, and loyalty don't account for much to the intellectual elites.
The Greens are only playing out and bringing to the surface one of the schisms that have always existed. Their reductionist thoughts of always being more right than other parties also goes down to sub-groups and indeed individuals being more right than others.
One of the biggest schisms is between the city greens and the country greens.
The city greens being that everyone should move into a compact city, centralised control, with high density and everything being in walkable distance or brought to them, ie food, with the countryside being left in its natural state.
The country greens conversely believe that people should be on an acre or two, low density being more self-sufficient, with local democracy.
Shaw's biggest problem in consensus politics is getting caught between these two groups, ie seen as living in suburbia.
I have come to appreciate CT's grasp of political history even if I think his politics is misguided. NZ is far better served by a right of centre govt with a heart, as well as a head, in the long run. Better than the current left of centre govt pretending to have a heart & then blowing it with their mindless promises & policies. It's just cut & paste politics which looks as if it has been over indulged at both ends/extremes.
As for the Groans? The less said the better.
"right of centre govt with a heart" - when have we had one of those? I hope you are not talking about the current lot who will give tax breaks back to property investors, cut spending for tax cuts, and are religiously opposed to abortion and homosexuality (but are too smart to say so).
The Greens are certainly unremarkable in their understanding of the operation of our monetary system and they don't waver in the slightest on the orthodox view of the government as just another currency user which must depend upon the private sector to finance it through taxation and borrowing. They are no different to the ACT Party in that respect, hardly visionaries that will change or improve anything.
The Greens are just neo-liberals on bikes as economist Bill Mitchell likes to describe them.
"Shaw worked in the consulting division at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Between 2011 and 2014, Shaw worked as both a consultant for HSBC bank on "environmental awareness programmes for future leaders" and also at Wellington social enterprise the Akina Foundation.[6]"
.from Wikipedia.
CT is right in his analysis of The Greens NZ but his statement that it also applies to the overseas green movement is clearly wrong. The Greens in Germany are the second biggest party in the national parliament, their ministers are more popular than the leading Social Democrats. They serve in more State Parliaments than the Christian Democrats (Merkel's party) and they are in different German parliaments for the last 25 years. Their approach to government has matured and is pragmatic rather than ideological. They certainly have shown that green politics can be determent while also being democratic
IMO they should go back to no leader. They don't really need one (or two). They didn't use to have leaders, and it kind of goes against their ethos. What are they going to do if they become a coalition and one of them needs to become deputy PM, do they have a co DPM?
Especially for the 90% plus of commentators here who have very little idea of the Green Party, (not that it stops their reckons) here is the Green Party Charter:
Our charter
This is the founding document of The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.
The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand; recognises Māori as Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand; and commits to the following four Principles:
Ecological Wisdom
The basis of ecological wisdom is that human beings are part of the natural world. This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.
Social Responsibility
Unlimited material growth is impossible. Therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally.
Appropriate Decision-making
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.
Non-Violence
Non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.