The failure of the left movement in New Zealand

Image from the excellent AUT Journalism students newspaper, Te Waha Nui

People on the New Zealand Left, myself included, should be disappointed with ourselves. Since 2002, we have been disorganized and without Parliamentary representation. We have buckled beneath the behemoth juggernaut of the LabNats’ duopoly, ignoring the fact that each year less people are persuaded to even vote. Indeed, the by-election results in Mount Albert show that many continue to turn away from the polling booth, unsatisfied with the choices they are being given on their ballot papers.

So why should we be disappointed in ourselves? We have normalised a culture of failure. We have accepted poor performances in elections, a fixation on the success of overseas left-wing movements and, worst of all, fragmentation between groups and parties. I admit to having engaged in these sins at various points in my half-decade of political activism, both in Labour and now in RAM.

Most pathetically, we humiliate ourselves every time we talk of 'educating the electorate'. The electorate does not need to be educated. They can see for themselves how disastrous extreme neo-liberalism is. Radical ideologies do not sit well with Kiwis, not matter how well they are 'educated'. What New Zealanders want is a pragmatic, sensible socialism that is phrased in a Kiwi lexicon and sculpted by Kiwis, not by political economists of the past two centuries or ivory tower academics in foreign lands.

As capitalism faces it's greatest crisis since the Great Depression, it seems like there is a unique opportunity for left-wing unity in New Zealand. Labour too is continuing to open up a vacum to it's left, which the Greens can't hope to fully fill. The valedictory speech of Michael Cullen, which mentioned that he considered Labour a 'fiscal conservative' party is a startling shift from the previous modus operandi of "talk centre-left, act centre-right". Socialists, social democrats, national conservatives, environmentalists, and even pragmatists should be angered by the commitment to neo-liberalism by the LabNats since 1984.

There is the possibility for a movement of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders from all walks of life. Not only the much vaunted (and fetishised) 'working class', but also the 'middle class' and even people in the 'upper class'. Shock horror, maybe one or two very wealthy people in New Zealand actually are further left than Labour and the Greens!

But where is the party that can effectively capitalise upon the failure of Labour to continue it’s historical social democratic course? There is no single organisation that can extend a hand to ordinary New Zealanders who feel frustrated by the continued free market dogma. People on my right and left, frustrated with the free market policies of the LabNats, are offered a confused smorgasbord of parties: RAM, the Alliance, the Greens, Social Credit, and others. Just like the capitalism we criticize, we are wasting useful energies with wasteful competition and ineffective allocation of labour and political capital!

Unfortunately, New Zealand is plagued by sectarianism between left parties, personalities and such like. Last election, we scrapped over a few thousand votes. It is an indictment upon us all on the left, myself included, that we have not fought harder for unity. While the Greens should be respected, they simply are not that attractive to a vast constituency of economically progressive New Zealanders.

These people want a clear message that we need to put people before profit, democratic ownership of strategic infrastructure, and more say for ordinary people in our national decision-making. Even a conservative social democratic program would be radical in today's neo-liberal political climate, and with a powerful nation-wide activist network, could seize upon the mass of people who remain unmoved by the current political offerings.

Self-criticism is something we need to use to learn from our mistakes, not blindly pursuing untested (or tried-and-failed) courses of action. We need to work out what was best in movements like the early Labour Party, Values, Social Credit, the NewLabour Party, the Alliance, and even New Zealand First. Self-criticism is something we need to use to learn from our mistakes, not blindly pursuing untested (or tried-and-failed) courses of action. We need to start working on strategies to be successful, not to continue to mire ourselves in archaic ideological battles or petty personal squabbles.

Let me make this clear: one thing I am sick of is trite clichés about left unity. We can’t engage in the twisted double-speak used by groups like the Socialist Worker Party in the United Kingdom, who make loud calls for 'broad coalitions' whilst in reality undermining such a goal. The SWP a few days ago sent out an 'open letter' calling for ‘left unity’ and a new ‘broad’ party following the EU elections. These are the same extremist idiots who ruined the RESPECT coalition, the UK's strongest performing broad left coalition. In other words, the SWP are hypocrites of the highest order. Sadly, such sectarian behaviour is endemic amongst left-wing groups in the English-speaking world.

We need to develop our own indigenous way of building a new party, not obsess with how things are being done overseas. Talk needs to be followed by action. Not that progressive parties in Latin America, Asia and Europe don’t offer some very good ideas, but we have got to get real about New Zealand conditions. There isn’t an army of ideologically committed socialists out on the streets. There is not, and never should be, a class war in our country. We’ve got to analyse the awful situation we have put ourselves in, and work out a way out of it with a broad left party that unifies the disparate elements of our movement.

Time is running out. I believe that at a national level, unless there is a unified left-wing party in the next 12 months time, we could potentially lose our shot as Labour rebuilds its legitimacy and takes advantage of the mistakes of National.

We have failed for nearly a decade since the Alliance lost parliamentary representation, and I fear that without immediate action, we are going to continue to be marginalised by parties who use better strategies, and focus on success rather than failure. In the words of Karl Marx, an above average left-wing political economist with his fair share of failings, "the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

I am happy to go on record saying “Enough!” Time is up for our failed strategies. They're not working. We don't even have local political representation, let alone anything in Parliament. Our only successes are based around temporal campaigns. So why the hell aren't we getting together to pool what limited resources we still have? I get the feeling that many enthusiastic activists, myself included, may not stick around in politics a hell of a lot longer if our political milieu doesn't change.

John Key's real mentor: Lee Kuan Yew

New Zealand PM John Key watching Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew signing Key's copies of Lee's autobiography. Another one of Lee's several biographies, presumably also Key's, sits adjacent.

The recent appointment of former National Deputy Prime Minister (and then Party Leader) Jim McLay to the Washington ambassadorial post has created some interesting associated commentary. The New Zealand Herald in particular went as far as to argue that McLay is Key's "political mentor". While McLay may have encouraged Key to stand and given him hints about internal party protocols, in reality Key's most important mentor lives on a shore rather distant from Aotearoa.

I was utterly horrified at such a lack of journalistic insight. While they may be mates, McLay is a leading member of the neo-liberal right-wing of the National Party, whereas Key is the leader of the party's pragmatic left. McLay is being sent away to stop him from whipping up anger that the Government is not following a radical far right economic program. Key is skillfully shipping off someone who has already been known in National Party circles to be expressing reservations about the current Government. Journalists should know this, and should be aware of the deep factions inside National.

More importantly, I'd argue that Lee Kuan Yew is the true political mentor for John Key. Lee, the long serving Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore from it's independence for most of the 20th century, has frequently met with Key both in New Zealand and in his home country.

I have been following Singapore's influence on Key for some time. In two seperate posts (here and here) on my previous blog, I looked at the links between Singapore/the PAP/Lee Kuan Yew (as interlinked as they all are) and John Key and his wider National Party.

I don't intend this post to be my last either. I am merely bringing the topic back to life now that Key has been successful in gaining the role of Prime Minister, and placing the relevance of his Singaporean exposure into the very important context of governance.

Singapore's then-PM Lee (with raised hand) surrounded by PAP officials and Government ministers at a rally in 1984

Historically, members 'pragmatic left' faction of the National Party have both publicly and privately expressed support for the policies and ideology of the People's Action Party of Singapore. Keith Holyoake, Robert Muldoon, Gilbert Myles, Winston Peters - all names irrevocably associated with the National Party left - have praised the pragmatic ideology that has governed Singapore since its independence from Malaysia in 1965. Key fits in with these men comfortably, as do several other members of his caucus (Paul Hutchinson and Steven Joyce are two good examples).

Pragmatism and Asian Values have little in common with the 'dries' - the free market right - in the National Party epitomised by McLay. The man is justifiably regarded as a political failure due to his status as a 'fill in' National Party leader between Muldoon and Bolger, never achieved the heights that Lee's People's Action Party achieved in rapidly modernising Singapore with a curious mixture of state capitalism, social democracy and political authoritarianism. McLay would probably find such a mix repulsive, whereas Key clearly appreciated much of it while working for Merill Lynch and having his son born while living on the island state.

Of course, it is important to ask here: how do we know Key appreciated it? He has said that he likes Singapore in television and print interviews, given at least one entire speech about New Zealand imitating Singapore's economic policies to a National Party conference ('Hitching Our Waka to their Rickshaw'), and as from the photo above, owns Lee Kuan Yew's several biographies (which he let Lee sign looking on like an eager school girl). And this is forgetting the aforementioned unknown number of meetings between Key and Lee over the last few years.

Moreover, our Prime Ministers time living and working in Singapore doubtlessly had an impact on his psyche (as it does to anyone who spends a significant amount of time there) and would have certainly have undermined any youthful libertarian/pro-market radicalism. Lee's skillfull abilities to follow the public mood, to push the economy in the right direction with state instruments and an acumen to admit defeat when necessary doubtlessly are capabilities Key tries to emulate as a leader.

It would be silly to argue that Key has imitated the political authoritarianism of the People's Action Party while in office. Increasing police power certainly doesn't equate to destroying the lives of opposition opponents through law suits and banning of any political protest. Nevertheless, the present coalition has (so far) administered a pragmatic mix of policies very much in line with ignoring rigid adherence to free market orthodoxy. The Government certainly isn't following what McLay would've wanted: privatisation of the remaining state assets, slashing taxes to the bone and destroying any social welfare and state housing nets. National and it's allies in practice seem to want to keep New Zealand where it is at the moment - a mixed economy with a strong capitalist bent.

Key ain't no social democrat, not even a right-wing one, but his talk of building cycle ways and bailing out Fisher and Paykel are not cries of a dying capitalist. They are the talk of a Singaporean pragmatist who has read a lot of Lee Kuan Yew. The talk of someone who dreams that he can rescue an economy like Lee did, and sees him just like Winston Peters sees Winston Churchill and how Don Brash sees Ronald Reagan: as political mentors from afar.

I intend to continue with research on the relationship between Lee Kuan Yew and John Key. Understanding what really motivates a Prime Minister, his own ideology, allows powerful and critical analyses to be created that really match the conditions we face as a country today. People on the left will never suceed in building an alternative to the LabNat duopology if we don't get this. If we cannot see past National's neo-liberal rhetorical front to the press and difficult party activists, and the fact that Labour under Phil Goff and Annette King is comfortably to the right of National on many issues, then we can't build a broad left movement capable of building a new society.

Co-operation, not class warfare in New Zealand

"The ideology is parked at the door," said our Prime Minister John Key in an interview before giving the opening speech of the 'Job Summit' today in Manukau City. For some anti-National observers, the entire Summit is simply a savvy attempt, just like the 1984 Economic Summit, to put window dressing on a strategy of neo-liberal reform.

Unlike those critics, I actually believe that the Job Summit is more than a public relations stunt. Hundreds of serious recommendations were made to the Government today to help our economy and in particular, to stop the rapid growth of unemployment. 20 of these were picked by the Government to look at: the introduction of 9 day working fortnights (with the Government paying workers on the day off), a state-private investment fund for tourism, and various other better-than-average policy solutions.

Sure, Key is engaging in PR to some extent. The responses are not truly devoid of ideology. That would simply be impossible: it was dominated by a right-wing government, a right-wing economic civil service and a conservative business leadership. However, the fact that the conference overruled extremist free marketeer elements trying to push for further liberalising our labour market shows that it was not a right-wing talk fest that some have tried to paint it as.

Indeed, the conference seems more to be inclined toward tripartite corporatism than free market capitalism. This will be scratching on a blackboard to the ears of some of the left, but Key really is a moderate and pragmatic leader, and the Job Summit's priorities clearly reflect his own.

What impressed me the most was the idea of a sizable joint bank and state investment fund for businesses: that model has been used incredibly successfully in Germany and the Asian Tiger economies to stimulate meaningful and long term development and local business growth. With more easily avaliable lines of capital for Kiwi firms, as a soft form of protectionism, we certainly will see major benefits just like nations in Taiwan and Singapore did from similiar policy formulations.

Furthermore, the spirit of corporatist tripartism is visible amongst the attendees of the conference on the Jobs Summit official website. Unions, government and business were all working together, according to Radio New Zealand, with little friction. Clearly the summit was not dominated by the Business Roundtable intellectually masturbating over the audience with video-links of Chicago University neo-liberal economists. This is co-operation between different sectors in society, not revolutionary class warfare.

It's in this vein that Chris Trotter touches upon the very important differences between New Zealand and the popular upswing of rage in Ireland and other European countries in one of his recent blog posts here. Chris highlights the things that many on the socialist and wider left here are simply unable to grasp: New Zealand has always been an egalitarian society. While of course wealth inequalities have skyrocketed since 1984 after decades of extremist reforms, I don't believe Kiwis will ever have an appetite for the notions of class warfare that some groups seem intent on pushing.

People here want businesses and workers to co-operate together with government, not constantly be locked in a fight. That's something Key realises, and appears to be moving toward further entrenching after decades of painful industrial relations in New Zealand. Stability and security in a corporatist, state capitalist society are preferable in Key's eyes to the anarchistic dynamism of free market capitalism.

Chris Trotter is right to criticise Phil Goff in his posting too. Appearing on One News this evening, few would've picked up on the inadvertent symbolism of the portrait that was visible behind him: long time Labour leader of the 70's and 80's, Wallace Rowling, who was never elected Prime Minister. If Goff continues his whinging/failed strategies and his devoted followers in Labour keep him as leader, then he will befall the same fate as Comrade Wallace.

Overall, I think analysts of New Zealand's political situation need to take a long , hard look at what is happening at the moment. As I predicted in some academic research I wrote last year that I will eventually publish on this blog, Key and many in National seem to be serious in following the progressive, pragmatic conservatism of Keith Holyoake and Robert Muldoon.

Socialists and free market capitalists will rail against him. Many National Party members and Ministers will say he's not going far enough. The rest of us should quietly thank God that during such turbulent economic conditions we have a leader, despite being a rich prick currency trader, unwilling to take drastic risks with our nation's economic future.

Right-wing froth

Kiwiblog's David Farrar today peddled out the usual 'authoritarian'/'Marxist'/banning' lines about the Green Party. Straight from the copybook of New Zealand's own proto-fascist daily, the National Business Review.

This is all despite David sometimes becoming very frustrated on his blog at people accusing National of having a secret right-wing agenda. I guess those in glass houses can throw stones these days, right?

John Key, National and social media/digital civil society

I am very pleased to see National is 'stalling' section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act which would have criminalised ordinary Kiwis using the internet for innocuous tasks. Of course, as Key has now publicly admitted, National is going to end up with some version of the law anyway. But the public has shown it has little appetite for large parties pushing through such punitive copyright laws in order to harmonise our legal framework with the USA and Australia.

What really is amazing is the fact that most media are attributing the backdown to the co-ordinated online 'Blackout' campaign by the excellent Creative Freedom Foundation. The issue had created an unlikely coalition of online activists from the left and the right, including National's usual unofficial spokesman in the blogosphere, David Farrar. The widescale blog and website blackout demonstrated the influence that online citizen-journalists and bloggers can have. It reinforces the fact that websites are becoming an extremely valuable part of civil society that can speak with a united voice when it feels threatened.

Thus, we shouldn't at all be surprised by Key's response. He has a very good sense of timing. Furthermore, he is emulating reasonably successfully the moderating influence of his traditional National Party predecessors (not Bolger or Shipley: think Holyoake and Muldoon). Think of how he dealt with the anti-smacking legislation, his skilful incorporation of the Maori Party into the Government and his consistent line in the media that he wants to avoid 'ideology'. Whether it is his own pragmatism at work or minute-by-minute advice from hard right PR agency Crosby-Textor is irrelevant: the strategy is working.

Few politicians in New Zealand have realised the power of social media (blogs, social networking and such like). John Key and a handful of National Party thinkers are the exception. 2007 and 2008 saw National construct successful colonies of supporters on Facebook, including a widescale campaign of encouraging activists and supporters to join the site. Check out National's frontpage and you can see how seriously they are taking social media. If you want to see how National's party membership campaign is working on Facebook and John Key's 12,000+ friends, check out his profile here.


It seems this strategy is expanding, and Section 92A is a perfect way to build an online coalition of supporters. The conversion of bloggers and tech fiends to become soft supporters of the Government will yield huge dividends. Overseas, social media are increasingly being used to manifest large displays of people power - turning loose offline networks into very well integrated and sometimes terrifyingly huge campaigns to pressure and influence parties like National. If Key can extend his honeymoon period with the very fickle Kiwi blogosphere, then it will provide vital oxygen for the party to develop a serious strategy to deal with the economic crisis.

Is National serious about using Web 2.0 applications that allow immediate responses by users to influence how it governs? This instance with Section 92A is a very interesting example of digital civil society interacting with Government, but we will have to wait and see whether these trends continue. If National does start taking digital civil society and social media seriously in terms of how it governs, not just as a popularity exercise, it will have a huge cutting edge over the technophobic Labour Party in the coming years.

Remember the LabNats

It's always a pleasure to know that you can affect the universe in little ways. I just had a little laugh when I saw frogblog use the term 'LabNats' in this post here.

For those of you who can remember, LabNats was coined by RAM during the 2008 election campaign. We created the word/phrase to intrinsically link Labour and National's behaviour together, and while not implying that they were the same thing ideologically, that their actions while in office were similar enough to be lumped together.

Just like the GST off food petition essentially starting a major political debate about the cost of food in New Zealand, LabNats is a contribution that I hope the occasional person will remember from RAM's otherwise weak overall performance during 2008.

Fiji, Commodore Bainimarama and 'Pacific Values'

New Zealand's political elite on an international level congratulates itself as being moral crusaders for human rights and democracy. Labour and National have both sought to create a national mythology that we are this idyllic South Pacific paradise with no serious trouble at home - and thus that we're able to tell the rest of the twisted world about how it should operate.

How often does this behaviour sometimes border onto self-righteousness and crude universalism? More importantly, do we perpetuate open double standards in our foreign policy?

Some discussion has been occuring on the blogosphere about Fiji's political situation, with Stephen Franks' blogging the Wellington Law Society Chairman's perceptive comments about Fiji and spread around by David Farrar.

I would argue that our treatment of Commodore Bainimarama's coup and subsequent interim government fits firmly within the self-righteous and double standards criteria. We didn't give his administration a chance, talking tough and trying to isolate the regime immediately. And what a surprise, Bainamarama starts lashing out at New Zealand and other Western countries imposing sanctions on it and condemning Fiji. A self-fufilling prophecy from our foreign policy mandarins if I've ever seen one.

Our treatment of Fiji fits firmly within New Zealand's historical role as the 'Britain of the South Pacific'. Our foreign policy views the Fijian nation as being undeveloped, with the unspoken discourse that it is our 'white man's burden' to intervene where the foolish savages in the Pacific screw up. The present sanctions and tough talking is essentially a microcosmic imitation of how the United States treats its enemies.

Don't get me wrong, clearly a handful of abuses of power have occurred in Fiji since the most recent coup. Nothing excuses the several people who have died in police and military custody. But compared to other nations with which we have extremely cordial relations, Singapore and China for instance, the present Fiji Government is far above them in terms of moral and political stature.

The former government of Fiji, under Laisenia Qarase, was corrupt and non-democratic. Indeed, Qarase actually used George Speight's coup in 2000 as a way to gain political power and destroy his Fijian Labour Party opponents by getting appointed, not elected, Prime Minister. Even more outrageously, Fiji has a constitution that racially allocates seats - another hangover from the painful years of the late 80's and 90's that the interim administration is intent on getting rid of.

What bothers me the most though is the contrast between Fiji and some of our country's close allies. The disrespectful way we treat Fiji with the way we treat nations in East Asia got me thinking back to the infamous Asian Values debate. Proponents of Asian values - to grossly simplify their argument - claimed that the success behind many of the Asian Tiger economies was their unique cultural and political traditions. New Zealand today tacitly accepts the Asian Values argument, particularly surrounding authoritarian regimes like those in Singapore, China and Indonesia. We are one of the closest nations in the US-friendly West to China, and have free trade agreements with a number of very authoritarian states.

Indeed, Fiji has far more excuses to focus on national development instead of developing democratic regimes than any country in East Asia. Fiji is probably the most developed country in the Pacific, yet it still has chronically limited resources, inter-communal conflict and rising sea levels due to global warming. Arguably it has the most to lose if there was a true economic and civil society collapse in the country, as the brain drain of Fijian Indians and even indigenous Fijians continues to New Zealand.

Moreover, what seems very strange to me is the fact that New Zealand castigates the military-civilian regime in Fiji when we happily support the corrupt excesses of the Tongan royalty, are friendly with the semi-democratic Samoan government and without complaint abide by the continuation of French colonialism in the South Pacific.

The time for double standards in our treatment of Fiji is over, and I certainly hope our new National Government realises the folly of the neo-colonialist bullying of the previous Labour administration.