After growing up in America, New Zealand politics are a breath of fresh air. But it’s not Jacinda Ardern, or anything specific to the kiwi mindset. It’s the design of their system. And that’s tremendously inspiring. You can’t conjure up a great leader, and you can’t make your society think in a different way, but you can absolutely make a better system. And that’s what the kiwis did.
Back in the 90s, kiwis decided to redesign their political system to require collaboration. So instead of one party winning all the power, New Zealand ends up being run by coalitions. In this country, the green party gets about 5% and the party on the left (Labour, which in America would be the Democrats) polls below 50%. That means Labour can’t win on their own, meaning they need to play nicely with others.
The same is true on the other side of the ledger. The party on the right is called National, and they’re the New Zealand version of the Republicans. They too rarely poll above 50%, although they do poll higher than Labour. This means they too need to build coaltions with other parties. One is called NZ First, another is called ACT.
Let’s say you’re a left-leaning person deciding how to vote. In America, you might relate most with a far-left party like the Greens. But because there’s no concept of a coalition government, voting for them is mathematically the same as not voting at all. It makes no difference. But in New Zealand, you can proudly vote Green knowing that your vote will still help those on the left.
In this last election, Jacinda Ardern actually got fewer votes than her rival in the other major party. But because neither of them passed the 50% threshold, a party called NZ First got to play kingmaker. When their leader, a guy named Winston Peters, sided with Labour, some cried foul. Shouldn’t the party who got closest to 50% automatically get the coalition partner necessary to lead? No, you have to earn it. And that’s powerful!
So Jacinda Ardern set to work earning her coalition partner. She was forced to listen to the issues they cared most about, and give them appropriate representation in her cabinet and in policy discussions. The end result is a policy platform that is hard to recognise if you’re used to the American winner-take-all approach. The party did a bunch of things that are more left-leaning, but also did other things that you’d expect from a right-leaning platform.
In the states, that’s increasingly seen as selling out your base. A Democrat needs to go far left, a Republican needs to go far right, and if they do anything different they risk alienating their supporters. But here it’s not as tribal. If people think you’re doing a good job, you get higher approval ratings. Even from people not in your political party.
Imagine that!