Pragmatism isn’t the only ideology in politics
In New Zealand politics, ideology has become a dirty word. Our politicians seem terrified of being seen as dogmatic or doctrinaire, of being associated with an “ism”. The preference, it seems, is for pragmatism — itself, of course, an “ism”. The image sought is that of nice people, well-intentioned and competent, seeking practical solutions to practical problems, untrammelled by preconceptions and dogma.
The perceived downsides of the term do not mean, however, that ideology, in the sense of a coherent body of thought and principle as to how society could or should operate, does not play an important, though sometimes subterranean, part in our politics, and not always in the way that might be expected.
John Key is usually seen as having been the arch pragmatist, the “nice guy” doing his best for his country, and making a tolerably good job of it. In reality, however, he presided over a deeply ideological government, constantly driven by the “free-market” or “neo-liberal” view that the market must always prevail and that, in doing so, it would make life better for everyone, including those who might appear to be its victims.
According to this view, Government has the limited role of merely holding the ring, so that those who can make the market work for them can do so without let or hindrance.
Other parties have had their own particular engagements with ideology. The Greens, owing much, I believe, to Russel Norman, began to realise that wearing a green heart on the sleeve was all well and good but did little to show, in the minds of the voters, that they were prepared to meet the multifarious challenges of Government.
That changed when they realised that protecting the environment would be better understood and more easily achieved if it could be seen as just one of the issues created by an unregulated market economy. If the bottom line took priority, the environment would always come second or third or worse.
The Greens have become a much more effective political force since linking their concern for the environment with a range of other, usually social, issues that are also adversely affected by leaving the “free” market unregulated and able to do its best or, more likely, worst. The Greens have been able to take that insight into policy areas beyond their traditional concerns.
The Act Party is of course the most overtly ideological of our political parties, traversing terrain where angels, and the National Party, fear to tread. Act’s willingness to spell out their free-market convictions is commendable but probably guarantees their consignment to the bit part they currently fulfil.
As to other parties, New Zealand First is probably the least ideological, hence Winston’s ability to negotiate a position in Government with whomever emerges best-placed. The Maori Party could do well emulating the Greens (and perhaps Mana) by learning that furthering Maori interests cannot be confidently entrusted to unregulated market forces.
That leaves Labour, the party with perhaps the most complicated relationship with ideology. Labour has been running scared for years, persuaded by the propaganda of their opponents that they dare not reveal, for fear of a supposed voter backlash (and assuming there is something to reveal), that they do not accept business values should supplant social, ethical and environmental values.
Labour content themselves with only occasionally effective sallies against the most egregious instances of market failure (as in housing) and with promising they will faithfully administer essentially the same system but with, hopefully, more compassion and competence.
Labour has hitherto sought to solve its problems by trying new leaders, one after another, as though the contest is one of personalities. There will be some immediate satisfaction at the favourable reception justifiably accorded to their new leader, and there is every reason to hope she will commend herself to the electorate. But the real test for Jacinda Ardern is not whether she can use her personal qualities to best effect, but what she says in political terms.
Lying low and smiling sweetly will not be enough. She needs to articulate a different view of how society can operate and of how our country can be made stronger and more united.
It is the commitment and credibility with which she delivers that message that will determine the success or otherwise of her leadership, not only in the run-up to the election but also — whatever the result — beyond.
If she loses, will she have done enough to live to fight another day? And if — fingers crossed — she wins, will she carry into Government enough fire in her belly to make a real difference over the next three years and beyond?