[ad_1]
OPINION: The delay to date of the New Zealand elections, to which not all citizens of the countries would have adapted so quickly, was only the latest event in a year in which the unexpected and the extraordinary have become characteristic constant of a fragile “new normal”.
What was expected to be a prime ministerial contest between Jacinda Ardern and Simon Bridges led, briefly, to one with Todd Muller before deciding on a choice between the prime minister and Judith Collins.
Labor could have set the precedent with its desperate change of leadership just weeks before the 2017 election, but this is unlikely to be what the National Party had in mind when it first looked at the dismal numbers from US polls. opinion.
For a country whose politics have sometimes been considered boring and predictable, the prelude to the October 17 elections has been the opposite.
READ MORE:
* Covid-19 restricted 2020 elections are ‘worst campaign environment’, says Winston Peters
* Election 2020: Grant Robertson hails NZ’s worst recorded shrinkage as ‘better than anticipated’
* Election 2020: Tax decisions on debt for the major parties
* Election 2020: Leaders Offer Contrasts in Uncertain Times
Therefore, it is virtually impossible to judge the performance of the Labor / New Zealand First / Green coalition with conventional measures.
The original government program, as articulated in the November 2017 speech from the throne, reflected the political preferences of the three parties, as modified by post-election negotiations and agreements. But that bears little resemblance to the events that have subsequently shaped the reputation of the government and the prime minister.
The pandemic election
Nothing in the Labor Party’s 2017 campaign could have prepared the party, its leadership or the electorate for a succession of life-and-death crises: the attack on the Christchurch mosques, the Whakaari / White Island eruption disaster and finally the Covid-19 pandemic, with its blockades, border closures and economic consequences.
ROBERT KITCHEN / Things
Labor could have set the precedent with its desperate change of leadership just weeks before the 2017 election, but this is unlikely to be what the National Party had in mind when it first looked at the dismal numbers from US polls. opinion.
The crises have arisen with almost Shakespearean qualities, prophesied in Hamlet: “When the pains come, spies do not come alone, but in battalions.”
New Zealand responded well in each case, showing unity, determination and concern. That says a lot for the government and its leadership, but also for the country and its people in general. A leadership that calls on a nation to come together can only succeed when the public delivers.
At the same time, public compliance is likely when the country’s leadership is respected. Respect is an impermanent reputational asset that, of course, is won or lost as a result of decisions made and communicated.
The perspective of a one-party government
LABOR PARTY
Labor’s first campaign ad in the election.
Amid these unpredictable and disruptive events, New Zealand’s electoral system (although still relatively new) now represents a kind of certainty and stability.
The 2020 parliamentary elections are the ninth held under the Mixed Proportional Membership (MMP) system. Having been approved, established, and reconfirmed by referendums in 1992, 1993, and 2011, the system is no longer particularly controversial.
However, MMP’s success in bringing greater parliamentary diversity has also accustomed New Zealanders to coalition governments. Could this change in 2020? If leaders’ debates and other campaign events don’t significantly affect voter preferences and current polls, an outright Labor majority is possible.
That would be the first electoral result of its kind since the introduction of MMP in 1996. But, as with other voting systems, MMP does not guarantee a particular result. The country may still see a return to a one-party government.
Supplied
In the video, leader Judith Collins addresses issues of infrastructure and business trust.
A third referendum
So this election is not a normal contest in which political parties parade their ideological programs and predilections before intermittently interested voters.
Instead, voters emerging from semi-traumatic circumstances, confinement, new social habits, and financial stress will be asked to reflect on the performance of leaders whose decisions have literally had life and death consequences.
New Zealand elections have traditionally been about the economy. Voters make decisions along semi-tribal lines, reflecting traditional party alignments. Those characteristics will also be present in 2020, but they are likely to be influenced by other considerations.
New Zealanders are asked first of all to reflect on the performance of the prime minister, whose image dominates all Labor posters and advertisements.
Together with the referendums on the legalization of recreational cannabis use and the End-of-Life Choice Act, the election itself has, in effect, become a third referendum on the instincts, judgment and determination of the prime minister. .
When we published our analysis of the 2017 elections we titled the book Stardust and substance – a reference to his then-opponent Bill English’s description of Jacinda Ardern’s supposedly short-lived “stardust” quality.
This time, while the stardust is still there, what most voters will gaze at is the substance of the prime minister’s accomplishments, and whether other leaders and parties could have done so as well, or better, in the face of the same constellation of challenges.
Stephen Levine is Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Parking – Victoria University of Wellington
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
