By Chris Trotter*
New Zealand politics is remarkably easy-going: dangerously so, one might even say. With the notable exception of John Key’s flat ruling-out of the NZ First Party in 2008, all parties capable of clearing MMP’s five-percent threshold, or winning one or more electorate seats, tend to find themselves ruled-in to the government formation game. (While it is true Labour’s Chris Hipkins ruled out NZ First as a coalition partner in 2023, that was only after NZ First had ruled out Labour.) ‘Never say never’, would appear to be the operating principle when it comes to forging coalition governments in New Zealand.
The contrast between New Zealand’s and Germany’s approach to forming coalition governments could hardly be starker. Doubtless on account of their Twentieth Century political nightmares, the major, and even some of the minor German political parties are prepared to collectively rule out of coalition contention any political party deemed morally unacceptable as a partner in power.
On several occasions in the past 20 years, the German Social Democrats (SPD) and Die Grünen (the Greens) could have governed Germany from the left if they had been willing to forge a three-way coalition with Die Linke (The Left Party). That they did not do so was on account of the fact that, in addition to a breakaway group of left-wing SPD members led by the former Finance Minister, Oskar Lafontaine, Die Linke also included the Party for Democratic Socialism, successor to East Germany’s Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (Socialist Unity Party).
For a local comparison, think Jim Anderton and his NewLabour Party merging with New Zealand’s own Moscow-aligned Socialist Unity Party!
The presence of former members of the brutally totalitarian SED in Die Linke was unacceptable to the SDP and Die Grünen. Accordingly, and well before voters cast their ballots, Germans were warned that Die Linke would form no part of any future German government – Left or Right. Obviously, the voters were still free to vote for Die Linke, but they would do so knowing that they were making a left-wing coalition government less – not more – likely. (Die Linke now polls below the five-percent threshold of Germany’s MMP system.)
On the other side of the political divide, the conservative Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and its allies, have made it clear that they are not prepared to enter any governing coalition in which the Far-Right, ethno-nationalist, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is being considered as an acceptable participant. With the parties of the Left all giving the same undertaking, the Nazi-adjacent “Alternative for Germany” has found itself excluded altogether from polite German politics.
Whether the AfD’s total exclusion from Germany’s coalition politics will hold, now that it is registering between 16 and 25 percent support in the opinion polls (becoming Germany’s second party after the CDU) remains to be seen.
What makes this exclusion of the political extremes electorally viable is the willingness of what used to be the two major German political parties, the CDU and the SPD, to come together and form a “Grand Coalition” of the Centre-Right and the Centre-Left. Such coalitions more-or-less completely undercut the bargaining power of the smaller parties and made it impossible for the tail to wag the dog. Once again, it is Germany’s tragic history, most particularly the unwillingness of the major parties of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) to deploy such system-protecting blocking coalitions against the Nazis, that explains the Grand Coalitions of post-war Germany.
All of which is by way of setting the scene for a reconsideration of the question: Is a “Grand Coalition” a realistic option for New Zealand?
The whole idea has been dismissed, almost out-of-hand, in the past. Political observers point to the fact that New Zealand continues to be dominated by two major parties, National and Labour, and that these “majors” both have ideologically compatible “minors” with which to coalesce. According to this “conventional wisdom”, a Grand Coalition would likely prove extremely damaging electorally. Principally, to the party deemed to be the weaker partner, but also, potentially, to the stronger party – especially if it appeared to be making too many concessions to its traditional enemies.
But, is it still the case that Act and NZ First, for National; and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, for Labour; remain ideologically compatible with their ‘natural’ coalition partners? Or, has the socially and politically destabilising impacts of Covid-19, and all its attendant malignancies, altered fundamentally the political cultures of the minor parties – and not in a good way? With the extreme policy demands of the Far-Left and the Far-Right destabilising the centre-ground, it is going to require political leadership of an increasingly high order to prevent New Zealand’s electoral politics from resolving itself into two snarling blocs of fanatics, hostile not only to one another, but also to the whole idea of bipartisanship and parliamentary compromise.
Already we are seeing the electoral scene being set for what might be called “retaliatory deconstruction”. The National-Act-NZ First Coalition has led the way by repealing the legislative achievements of its Labour-Green predecessor on a scale unprecedented since the ill-fated Muldoon Government of 1975-84.
It is sobering to recall the extent to which Muldoon’s electoral success was dependant on the baying extremists of “Rob’s Mob” – that uncompromising core of ideologically disoriented New Zealanders lured away from Labour by Muldoon’s populist promises to undo all the radical reforms that Labour’s “arty-farty, namby-pamby, left-wing liberals and academics” had foisted upon the “ordinary blokes” of a beleaguered working-class.
To reclaim the Treasury Benches, it seems inevitable that Labour-Greens-Te Pāti Māori will have to promise their voters a 100-day burst of retaliatory deconstruction every bit as thorough and destabilising as that overseen by Christopher Luxon. Political polarisation will intensify to the point where “normal” government becomes impossible, and democracy is reduced to a triennial search-and-destroy mission.
In his exit-interview with TVNZ’s Jack Tame, the former co-leader of the Greens, James Shaw, acknowledged the many reactionary measures – now implemented – that might have been avoided had Luxon had the courage to reach out to him for support. Shaw recounted to Tame the positive response he had received from 15 of the 16 Green activists he had been canvassing alongside in Dunedin when he asked them whether or not the Greens should reach out to National. Their support was not given on account of what could be achieved by such an alliance, but what it could prevent.
As Luxon feels the hot breath of Act’s and NZ First’s extremists on the back of his neck and, as he reckons with the damage their policies are already inflicting upon a New Zealand he has described as “fragile”, is there not some merit in considering the German example, and reaching out to a Labour leader who is undoubtedly as fearful of his own “allies” as Luxon is of his coalition “partners”?
In the words of Billy Bragg’s poignant anthem:
Sweet moderation
Heart of this nation
Desert us not, we are
Between the wars
*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.
58 Comments
What a great article.
EDIT. The comments below are so typical! They are mostly; short sighted, narrow minded, political drivel. Why can’t we just take the article on its merits which I believe should allow a thinking person to consider different ideas and possibilities. Or at the very least a different perspective?
WTF does Angela Merkel’s immigration policy have to do with this article? She was a bloody genius by the way. Literally worked as a research scientist while attaining a doctorate in Quantum Chemistry before getting into politics. But she probably doesn’t know as much about German domestic politics as the Jonny on the Spot’s from the interest.co.nz member base.
Why are most kiwis so predisposed to want to get into some sort of ridiculous political debate about complete nonsense, even if they need to take a redundant position irrelevant to what the author was trying to say in order to achieve it?
Maybe if we dissect this article and twist the meaning of his words, taking literal positions where they are not intended, we can reach ridiculous conclusions, put others down for what they didn’t say in the first place and ultimately feel good about ourselves?
FFS, or we could just open our tiny minds and expand our one track thinking!
There is hard line division though. Here reportedly James Shaw was disappointed that Luxon didn’t reach out to him. But the Greens are far more than just him aren’t they. On record that National are the very antithesis of their party, united and proud of that stance. Undoubtedly if he didn’t, then Luxon’s advisors would know what crowing and derision there would have been by the Greens in very publicly rejecting such an approach. And now funnily enough, James Shaw is no more all of which rather neatly confirms all of that doesn’t it.
If you watched the interview, Shaw says he would have put it to the membership ( who decide), that it would be a hard sell , but on the basis that it would be better than what we've got now , they might go for it . He gives the example of the radical group he met in Dunedin , that surprised him,by 15 of the 16 he asked, saying they would go for it .
CT does write from his position as a long term supporter of the working class - which is not so easy to find in NZ anymore
So his assertion that ACT/NZF policies are damaging is what he want to believe is happening ( and especially to the working class) - its hard to actually see any damage once you get outside the Wellington "beltway" but the divisive damage the party of the "working class" caused is still very visible
I think CT misses the underlying issues in Germany and elsewhere generated by mass immigration (Invasion) of people and cultures fundamentally opposed to western democratic values. The protests calling for a Caliphate will disturb the locals and should the protests continue it is conceivable that the percevied invaders being easy to recognise and therefore target ( echos of 1930's) Germany may resort to a familiar solution, same in Ireland were thepopulation has openly confronted the Police and done significant damage to their equipment public and private property especially property acquired to house the invaders. Mass migration globally is creating the divise society that will resolve the issue and probally violently with no sign the Political Elites are prepared to listen to their citizens, in the UK such are the threats against MP's that they now require special protection. Germany and Ireland may prove to be the canaries in the mine.
It was an interview well worth watching, not saying that to push the Green cause , but for its insights into our political parties.
Its not too late , if Nz First or ACT become unmanageable , the Greens could concievably step in on confidence and supply, however they would want to undo a lot that has already happened. clean car discount probably top of the list. Bear in mind labour could also offer the same.
I still maintain a minority govt would probably deliver us the best results, because each policy would have to stand on its own merits, not be backed by coalition agreements. There would still be some horse trading , but this govt has shown coalitions supporting acts they would never undertake themselves.
Or some changes so that the basic govt functions can continue without a govt needing confidence.
"Wholeheartedly agree. I'd quite like for coalition agreements to be banned"
Why, what would that achieve? The UK has a first passed the post system and their politics is a shambles (plus an unelected upper house). Voters are getting what they voted for and really what they deserve. The fact that 15% of the country support the Green Party tells me a lot, they are not fit to be in office in my opinion. There should be a minimum knowledge requirement of financial literacy and macro/micro economics - like passing a bar exam.
We have too many below average politicians and too many picked for gender and ethnicity over competence.
Act and NZ First got about 7% each. Unless their policy was shared with National and the other minor party in coalition , 93 % of the population did not vote for it . Of course you can say they did not necessarrily vote against it .
More than once Either Act or NZ First have said they have a mandate for their policy , usually one that the majority of voters would not have voted for.
Like the smoking policy for e.g .
Policy like that should be a consicence vote , not passed as a result of a coalition agreement.
"the one that was never mentioned to the voters in 2020."
It didn't need to be. It was already written into law.
Apparently the fact those laws exist came a massive shock to the red-neck elements in NZ society. Red-necks are not known for high levels of education and it was therefore easy to whip up outrage among them. Alas for us all - Three Waters died and as yet nothing has been changed and we continue handing out money to overseas lenders at higher rates because water authorities can not leverage government's massive balance sheet.
chrisofnofame: "Wholeheartedly agree. I'd quite like for coalition agreements to be banned"
Te Kooti: "Why, what would that achieve?"
Each voter gets to vote for a party.
But does each voter automatically endorse every one of that party's policies on all the issues? No.
And some voters are actually voting on a single issue. E.g. Many voters in the last election simply voted to remove the then current government. Others simply want less immigration and the rest be damned. And others just want tax cuts and don't care who pays for it e.g. people with disabilities and all of us as the NACTF uses yet more debt to pay for those tax cuts.
By banning coalition agreements, every party would need to stand on its own - and be accountable to voters on its own - for any issue / bill / etc. they backed. They could not hide behind the get-out-of-jail-free card that they were forced to because of a 'coalition agreement' made many months, or even years before, that no longer make any sense now whatsoever. It would also make parties think twice about implementing policies they never campaigned on, e.g. smoking law changes.
(Not quite sure how you got to me supporting a return to a FPTP system from my comment. I've always wanted people to vote for sides of an issue - not a party and certainly never a 'personality'. Voting on an issue requires people to bone up on that issue and they can dedicate more time to considering that issue in isolation without the b.s. that parties spin in a lead up to an election. That fact alone might improve voter performance considerably!)
No Mr Trotter.
The groupings have formed easily and logically. It took a few weeks but really that was only a problem to the media who want to write drama.
And it's democracy. Us voters present them with a situation and the parties have to work it out. A good thing.
And if some party does not countenance joining with another that's good too. If their voters wanted it to be different, they would have voted differently.
And yes it's complicated. But we have a lot of opinions to combine. Of course it looks messy. To fix that we would have to all think the same.
Its going to take years to fix the damage Labour did to this country, not just a few months. Just like the last two National Govts. And just when it is fixed and everything is going swimmingly (in 6-9 years) the country will vote Labour back in to do it all over again. Thus history repeats.
That's more an imaginary construct than reality, however.
And there's only so much the current government will be able to rule in favour of property speculators and businesses at the expense of working Kiwis before things go downhill severely and discontent increases a lot.
a triennial search-and-destroy mission
It's a very good analogy. The polarisation created by political extremism is a real threat to the peaceful transfer of power which is one of the 'basic ingredients" of democracy (4 and 5 below):
1 Demos – a group whose membership make political decisions (citizens) via a collective decision-making procedure (vote)
2 Territory where the decisions apply (nation-state) and the nation-state must be sovereign
3 Constrained freedom – limits (laws) are essential to ensure that acts infringing on others freedoms do not occur
4 Political legitimacy – willingness of the demos (citizens) to accept the outcomes of decisions of the nation-state, its government and courts even if they go against personal choices or interests
5 The demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next, without secession of the minority
Number 4 and 5 do seem at risk from the actions of Bishop et al to circumvent due process, transparency and accountability on behalf of some businesses. It will be a dangerous precedent to make, especially if it spreads more widely.
I am not comfortable with the combination of authoritarian centralisation of power in such manner, coupled with the rhetorical approach to undermining the public sector to justify taking more executive power away from them into the hands of politicians. This is not the first time in history such rhetoric and action has been used, and people who like it now won't like it when someone else's favourites take the same approach in future.
It follows upon overuse of urgency by both sides over the last few governments.
I'd have to say that with the lack of transparency under the last govt around some core issues, policies etc that would have far reaching impacts on the people, the current lot are simply trying to deliver results and front the media to reverse this loss of faith in the government that would impact 4 and 5. They may do things that benefit some and not others, that is what happens with high end decision making be it business or government, but at least they are doing it. Disclaimer, didn't vote for any of the three but at least we are seeing some form of progression vs previous government.
Much of the rhetoric seems to align with that post.
"It's for the good of the country..."
"The public sector just gets in the way and is too slow and cumbersome..."
"We will deliver progress..."
Every group that undermines democratic structures and the separation of legislature and executive will say similar. Not good for democracy though.
Both posts - great insights. It's really not a one side (of the political spectrum) vs the other - but rather the extremist ends of both.
For example, when Obama became president, I recall it the first time I had ever seen posters and picket signs stating "Not my President".
And then I saw the same when Trump got elected.
That statement runs deeply counter to items 4 and 5 in the 'recipe'. That type of weakness is the catalyst for the fall of nation states.
None of the commentors so far mentioned that for any ruling party in Government it should be considered that as the Government they in fact represent every NZ'r irrespective of whether they voted for them or not. And as many commentors have pointed out in the past, most if not all governments implement policy with one eye tilted towards the next election. While ideology may help a party win an election from the opposition benches (along with the ruling party losing it), it will be democracy and the ability to compromise to deliver what the people and country need that will deliver the next election. A multi-party coalition should make that more of a certainty than less.
Unfortunately that culture of representation of the people as the first priority exited stage right with the arrival of Muldoon coupled with his very able adoption of TV for both electioneering and politicking generally. Egotistical does not go anywhere describing, in terms of personalities , of what came to follow. The advent of MMP introduced numbers of mps of low and unsuitable calibre and now we have the disquieting feature of “career politicians” who bring into parliament, little more than their personal ambitions.
Maybe there’s hope. For instance the trail of National MPs that disgraced themselves and their party, starting with Gilmour and then the sorry lot exposed after the 2017 election must surely have sunk in. In that measure the removal of a suspect candidate down south prior to 2023 was encouraging and even more so is the calibre and potential.of the new MP for Rangitata. Maybe, just maybe.
it seems inevitable that Labour-Greens-Te Pāti Māori will have to promise their voters a 100-day burst of retaliatory deconstruction every bit as thorough and destabilising as that overseen by Christopher Luxon
Or maybe, in 3 years time the populace will be much better off and they will look back and realise that most of Labour's changes were what caused things to be so terrible now,
It would be nice to have money to spend on funding Pharmac instead of paying for disabled people to take overseas holidays. It would be nice if children attended school and learned things while they were there. It would be nice if rental housing didnt cost so much and at risk people were able to find a rental home instead of living in a motel for years. It would be nice if people stopped being welfare beneficiaries and got jobs. It would be nice if the crime rate went down and criminals were kept off the streets.
So the only way Labour's laws are coming back, is if National's one's make things even worse in 3 years time. And I'm willing to bet they wont be.
Pigeonholing parties.
So is this how one compares German political parties to NZ parties.
CDU and SPD center right and center left with Die Linke far left. to Nats center right and Labour centre left, Greens far left?
How does that leave the Greens and Act? Greens left and ACT right. I ignore Te Pati Maori as they are an ethno party, culturally exclusive and without nationalism.
Perhaps in NZ the Greens should be classified as far left and ACT far right or is ACT only right?
Overseas MSM label AfD and FN(France) as far right. If that is the case who is on the right in Germany and France?
Parties are labelled center left, center right and anyone outside of that are called far left or far right?
I'd suggest AfD will morph into something similar to Marine Le Pen's FN party if not there already, softening of the hard right issues.
I do not classify strong immigration and strict refugee policies as far right but then I don't generally follow MSM's narrative.
they dont let ideology get in the way of practicality.
I only think you might come to that view if you think that their proposed solutions to things (e.g., education vouchers; anti gun-registers; boot camps; three strikes laws, etc.) are your preferred policy approaches. But that does not make those policies, non-ideological - not by a long stretch - given evidence doesn't support those approaches as working/good policy. Rather, they represent a particular ideological approach.
I suspect K.W. might be all for a "three strikes law" to deal to the riff raff until they see the taxpayer costs to build more prisons and our Corrections overheads/budget blows out running them. Not a problem, have private enterprise build and run our prisons for a profit. Let them enjoy the time value of money invested in an asset instead of the taxpayer.
I ignore Te Pati Maori as they are an ethno party, culturally exclusive and without nationalism.
I don't think of them as culturally exclusive (for example our kids - no Māori background - attended kōhanga) and TPM are nationalist in the sense of a 'first nations', indigenous rights approach - the essence of tino rangatiratanga.
I'm not sure I'd associate the good people of the kōhanga reo movement with the politics of TPM.
As far as I can tell as an outsider, Maori are not some monolithic group: there's a diversity of opinion, but which group are actually wielding power and attempting to control the discourse?
All the discourse or principles followed (in theory) should tie back to basic cultural protocols/ethics that were/are shared by all of tangata whenua familiar with (and practicing/living) te ao Māori. Manaakitanga, for example being that basic ethical premise that relates to inclusivity/welcoming of all peoples to the cultural institutions, such as kōhanga.
Again, just as with the political ideologies of all parties, the threat to democracy comes from the extremist views/actions/actors of each of those ideologies - and yes, some TPM supporters are likely to include extremist actors as well.
And you are so right, Māori, like any other culture/ethnicity are not a monolithic group - and yes, there is diversity of opinion, but the core ethical principles are well documented and taught as an organising, single framework. And yes, self-interests often violate those principles in decision-making. (for example, iwi opposition to the Kermadec's ocean sanctuary) - just as the fundamentalist Christians in the US are prepared to support a political candidate that cheats on his wife; treats woman like sex objects; sexually abuses others; lies; cheats on his taxes; etc. etc.. They are part of the extremist crowd, whose leaders that ignore these basic ethical transgressions, I assume, support Trump for personal gain/advantage (or through fear of retribution should he obtain power again).
‘These are defining characteristics of the American Left for example’
Rubbish. Libertarians would say it’s not the governments right to tell you what you can or can’t do with your own body. Nor is it any business of the government what clothes you wear (gang patches any one?).
ACT are as close as we get to socially libertarian but are miles from economically libertarian. Probably because they’re caught playing the role of the political arm of the Epsom old boys club.
A centre-right/centre-left coalition has some appeal as it would create a simpler majority without the flaky edges - their economic policy is close to the same for a start, even if fiscally there would need to be a lot of talking.
But for a grand coalition - or even effective governance - to stand any sort of a chance, the overwhelmingly adversarial nature of our politics would need to evolve to adult co-operation, we would need to become evidence-driven decision makers rather than followers of untested doctrine, and the idea of service rather than aggrandisement would need to be rediscovered.
God help us.
Grand coalition in NZ politics? In my opinion that is more unlikely today than at just about anytime since I relocated here in 1987. Two, among no doubt many reasons : 1) the advent of social media 2) the NZ version MMP. These two have simply been the enablers of evermore tribalism. Alas we live in a country that is part of a world where 'taking sides' is de rigueur. Whatever happened to the art of diplomacy.
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.