[ad_1]
Left-wing populism
In our recently released book on the 2017 New Zealand General Election, based on data from the New Zealand Electoral Survey (NZES), we argue that populism has another side: originally as a social movement, populism was left-wing, not of law.
Those who originally called themselves populists sought to mobilize and unite the vast majority of the people to challenge the excessive economic and political power of a narrow elite. This form of democratic populism emerged in New Zealand in a wave of reforms that, by the 1890s, had turned the young country into one of the world’s first full-fledged representative democracies.
Populism flourished under the liberal governments of the early 20th century, personified by Prime Minister Richard Seddon (“King Dick”). His government defended the interests of the working class and small farmers by encouraging unionism and dividing the large estates of the wealthy colonial.
The Liberals were less successful in defending the interests of the Maori. But New Zealand’s first Maori Deputy Prime Minister and at one time acting Prime Minister was Liberal MP James Carroll (Ngāti Kahungunu), not Winston Peters.
Inclusion versus exclusion
We define populism in two senses: first, as a set of democratic norms that takes seriously the idea of ”the sovereignty of the people”; second, as rhetoric that uses populist language to attract support, but not necessarily for populist ends.
We also argue that it is necessary to distinguish between authoritarian or exclusive populism, which seeks to divide people by ethnicity or national origin, and inclusive populism, which seeks to build majorities on the foundations of what the majority of the members of a society have in common.
We found that in 2017 New Zealand populists were predominantly on the left, with few exhibiting authoritarian views. For the minority of voters who expressed preferences for both populism and authoritarianism, their party of choice tended to be New Zealand First, the party that in 2017 won just over 7 percent of the vote and is now getting 2 percent of the vote. hundred or less.
So does the decline in support for New Zealand First in 2020 represent a shift in populist sentiment?
Where have the authoritarian populists gone?
New Zealand First’s type of populism over the past three years has shifted between exclusive and inclusive. In the 2017 election campaign, the party’s rhetoric was true to form, focusing on reducing immigration and the desire to give the regions more voice.
NZES data shows that a majority of New Zealand First voters wanted the party to form a coalition with National, but a sizeable minority also wanted to see political change. Indeed, New Zealand First’s campaign policies in 2017 were closely aligned with those of Labor, with a few exceptions: water quality and climate change mitigation are the two most clearly incompatible.
Our study shows that in 2017, New Zealand First appealed to older voters, Pākehā, men, low-income and living outside of major cities.
Ultimately, New Zealand First entered a government with Labor, led by Jacinda Ardern, a relatively young woman whose rhetoric, feminism, and political orientation were aligned with a more inclusive version of populism. This challenged some New Zealand First voters, but won over others.
More recently, the issue of immigration has all but disappeared from the political agenda, eliminating New Zealand First’s key populist chart. Peters has been advocating various versions of the border reopening for the past three months, suggesting that he may be an internationalist at heart, at least when the economy is at stake.
It is too early to be sure where New Zealand’s small percentage of authoritarian populists have gone. Are they about the 2 percent who remain committed to New Zealand First? Or has the aggressive labeling of Labor by National Party leader Judith Collins as anti-farmer and anti-aspirants been gaining ground?
Or has the determination with which Labor closed the borders struck a chord with New Zealand First’s authoritarians? Some recent poll analysis suggests that much of New Zealand’s First Vote of 2017 has shifted to Labor.
The rise of moderate populism
Our analysis of the 2017 election reveals that the rhetoric of Ardern’s inclusion campaign was engaging. Voters found her personable, competent, and trustworthy. It also struck a chord with the emergence of COVID-19. Her phrase “a team of 5 million” clearly evokes the populist spirit.
Confidence in Ardern’s leadership, despite the centralized nature of our political institutions, has remained high. At the same time, satisfaction with our political process has not waned as it has in other democracies, making a rebound in authoritarian populism even less likely.
Those who fear and regret populism tend to see only the dark side of the phenomenon and often dismiss the idea that “the people” represent more than a threat. Therefore, liberal democratic critics of populism admire or long for constitutional controls to isolate governments from public opinion.
While we recognize that the protection of human rights requires some limits to the majority, our analysis of contemporary New Zealand politics indicates that the best antidote to authoritarian populism is a democratic and inclusive form of moderate populism.
Certainly, Ardern’s version of moderate populism has turned out to be popular. Since immigration is not the focus of this election, New Zealand First’s appeal to authoritarian populist voters seems to have disappeared. To find out where these voters are going, we will have to wait for the results of the New Zealand Election Survey 2020.
The conversation
Jack Vowles is Professor of Political Science at Victoria University of Wellington and Jennifer Curtin is Professor of Politics and Politics at the University of Auckland.
