POLITICS 107NEW ZEALAND POLITICSMID-SEMESTER TEST ONWARDS

LECTURE EIGHTPolitical leadership and the powers of the PMWhat is leadership? How can we study leadership? What powers does the PM hold? To what extent is the role of the modern PM presidential?

Outline:Become more important because of increasing role of media in influencing the way elections are conducted and their outcomes. Leadership is very important: voters are asked regularly about preferred PM. Some argue that it isn’t the most important thing, but nevertheless we know that they are the personification of the political party: they reflect and represent the values of the party.Political parties tend to now say little about their agenda until close to the election itself (they don’t want to say too much), for fear that other parties will steal their policies. Labour is in a difficult position: they are constantly being asked about how they are different to National. Shearer doesn’t want to say too much... e.g. capital gains tax at 2011 election. Political leadership has thus become increasingly more important.We talk about presidentialisation of our leaders: we look closely at USA, our strategies of election campaigns are dictated particularly by what is happening in the USA... NZ’ election are becoming more ‘presidential’. PM increasingly talks about a broad range of portfolios: PM plays a prominent role in being a personification of the party itself.

What is leadership?“A reciprocal relationship between those who choose to lead and those who decide to follow” (Kouzes and Posner, 1993)

In our political system, we don’t directly elect the Prime Minister, which is why the “preferred MP” question in surveys is somewhat misleading. Historically, that person is chosen by the caucus of the party (MPs inside parliament).Leadership is a reciprocal relationship (as stated above).

Are leaders born or are they made?Have they acquired certain skills and characteristics which make them great leaders, or are they “born to lead”? Environment can have a significant influence over ones capacity to lead.

What qualities do we expect to find in a successful leader?Self-confidence (people seek a strong leader)... a lot of these qualities appear to be “acquired”.

- Inherent skills- Acquired skills- Sense of timing (with a dash of luck) e.g. Don Brash in National, contesting Bill English

Inherent skills - e.g. ambition, courage, patience, judgment, ability to inspire

Margaret Thatcher has been described as ‘ruthless’, similar to Muldoon in New Zealand. Sometimes the public like this ruthlessness, because we search for strength and assertion in a leader.

Acquired skills - e.g. empathy, management experience, media skills

John Key’s ordinariness is something the public can often relate to. When talking to people, can we make them feel like they’re important - if we can’t do this naturally, we have to acquire these skills.

Additional skills, such as knowing your policies, mobilise voter support and get your members enthusiastic and keep them organised

Approaches to the study of leadership:

• Single-actor narratives: mainly books which are written about political figures, and in the context of New Zealand, there are numerous examples

e.g. Brian Edwards on Helen Clark, Levine and Johansson on John Key.

• Cyclical typologies: where you look at particular leadership types and styles

The mobilising leader (the great reformer) such as Margaret Thatcher or Roger DouglasThe reconciling leader such as John Major or Keith Holyoake / John Key - these people are much more likely to find areas of co-operation and reconciliation

Transactional leaders (pragmatic, deal-making leaders) such as John Key - don’t want to stir up too much controversy, wanting to grow their electoral supportTransformation leaders (similar to mobilising leaders) - people with big ideas and great visions, people who see politics as a battle of ideas and wanting to win the battle

• Functional Model: legislator, manager (hold the party together) and mobiliser (enthusiastic and able to inspire)

Populism and leadershipPeople who can see that emotional leadership will have an effect - people who can make New Zealanders feel wary about big corporations etc.

Michael Joseph Savage - first Labour leader of NZAble to reach out to disadvantaged people, and exploited that - again - to his advantage.

Robert Muldoon - claimed to represent all New Zealanders.He would exploit feelings of prejudice and anxiety to bring him political success. e.g. Springbok tour, pitting rural areas vs. towns.

Winston Peters is a particularly populist leader.

Presidential role of the PM

Executive function: micro- and macro-management (ability to make decisions, and taking a tough stance)Communication function: interpersonal, public performance, media and campaign role (persuasiveness and elocution, confidence)Party leader function: guardian of the party’s values and beliefs, accommodates all factions within the movement (the leader personifies the party itself)

Labour appears to be divided, not by ideology, but strong personality differences. But the PM must try to accommodate the different values of different people.

Limited power• May be able to usurp power from time to time• Fundamentally, however, the Prime Minister’s power is dependent upon an

ability to persuade

Has the prime-ministerial leadership changed under MMP?Yes - advent of coalition government, predominance of minority government (so when National wants to get legislation through, they have to forge coalition in the parliament), and internal party discipline has been weakening (some MPs have a very tenuous hold on the beliefs of the party).

Skills required include:- consultation- co-operation- compromise

A reconciling and transactional style rather than a mobilising and transformational style of leadership is what is needed under MMP in New Zealand.

LECTURE NINEPolitical participation

What do we as citizens do as ‘political animals’ and do we interact with government? There are many ways we can measure and reflect this.

Quotes to analyse...

‘While many in countries under dictatorial rule struggle bravely to achieve democracy, many people living in democracies are alienated from politics and feel it does not work properly.’ Gerry Stoker

‘It is claimed that people hate politics, political parties have lost loyal voters as well as grassroots members, while electoral turnout has fallen and public disaffection has spread.’ Pippa Norris

General sense that the meaning of politics to citizens is in decline.

‘the slow slump in interest in politics and current events is due to the replacement of an older generation that was relatively interested in public affairs by a younger generation that is relatively uninterested.’ Robert Putnam

Works with ‘social capital’ concept. Explains decline of political participation. Not saying that young people don’t care about politics, he believes television and technology etc. have ruined social capital (not sharing things, not being together, not encouraged to talk about politics). We don’t socialise sufficiently with people and talk politics, less likely to talk and thus less likely to engage.

Interest in politics by age:Older people tend to be more interested in politics. But we don’t know if younger people will start to become more interested in politics... will they be more politically active? This is the worry for democratic scholars, because there is an argument put forward by American political science scholar that voting is habitual - the earlier you create the habit, the more likely you are to continue practicing the habit. He thinks voting age should be raised to 21 years or 25 years...

• What is it?• Why does it matter?• How do New Zealand citizens participate?

Chapters 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3

WHAT IS IT?Participation in the process of government - it is an activity, it isn’t an attitude.It’s the process by which citizens, as distinct from public officials or elected politicians, choose political leaders, governments, and help shape and implement policies.

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

• legitimises the democratic process - more people turning out to vote, tells us more about the whole set of democratic institutions that we have. Why did we change from FPP to MMP? Partly because of declining voter turnout. We use participation as a measure of the legitimate nature of our democracy

• makes politicians accountable - when government isn’t working under urgency, we have a really good select committee process. Not all select committees are chaired by MPs, so you don’t necessarily get a negative outcome.

• improves quality of representation - more egalitarian, anybody can stand for parliament (essentially)

• makes for better decision-making• creates a more cohesive community - social inclusion: the more people who feel like

they have a say, the more likely we are to function better as a society. The more groups out there feeling marginalised, the more likely it is to have civil unrest (perhaps not so much in New Zealand).

• prevents government by a privileged elite - range of people who are doing the governing on our behalf

Government is run by a few big interestsIn 2008, 38.2% of voters agreed, in 2011, 47% of voters agreed (increased between 2008 and 2011). But why? In the 12 months leading up to 2011, people felt worse off - economic recession. Everybody tends to associate National representing business and rural interests, as opposed to the worker interests typically associated with Labour.

People like me have no say over what the government does...In 2008, 41.7% of voters agreed, in 2011, 48.3% of voters agreed (increased between 2008 and 2011).

MAIN FORMS OF PARTICIPATION:• low-cost participation• high-cost participation

LOW COST PARTICIPATIONVoting in local and national elections (minimum element)- participation isn’t compulsory- comparatively easy to enrol in New Zealand- comparatively easy to vote on election day

Voting in referendumsSubscription membership of a political party, interest group or social movementAccessing political blogs and party websites - very passive connectionFollowing political developments in the media

In Australia, voting is compulsory. Bad on some levels because you are forced to exercise your vote even if you don’t want to - to send a message that you disagree with all political parties and don’t want to vote.

Most people vote the way they do because of the political party which they identify with.

Voter turnout in 2011 was 74.21%. Idea that MMP would fix turnout hasn’t happened.

HIGH INTENSITY PARTICIPATIONBecoming a parliamentary candidate or contesting a local body electionMaking submissions to Parliament on proposed legislationWorking on an electoral campaignPolitical demonstrations, industrial strikes with political objectivesVarious forms of civil disobedience such as refusing to pay taxes, fines or obey a conscription orderCommunity action around local issues (e.g. housing or environment)

WHO PARTICIPATES?- 18 to 24 years old are less likely to vote:

- life-cycle argument (when you’re young and have things to do etc., you are just less likely to participate in politics... as you become mature, you might participate)

- generational argument (as new generations come onboard, they are just less likely to be political)

- confidence and efficacy (“rational choice” - focuses on the individual: is it in their interest to vote? If it’s not, they won’t... when they are confident that they know what they’re doing, they believe what they are doing will make a difference)

- Maori are less likely to vote: Maori or General roll?- Ethnic minorities and new migrants: less likely to turnout- Politically marginalised or disaffected: less likely to turnout

SOCIAL BIAS IN PARTICIPATION: those who are less educated / have less income / have less social status are generally less likely to vote.

New opportunities for participationNon-mainstream partiesSocial movementsNew technology (interactive party websites, political blogs and electronic voting)Deliberative democracy (citizen’s assemblies and juries)

POINTS TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS LECTURE:

LECTURE TENVisit from Nikki Kaye, National MP for Auckland CentralTalking about the role of a minister + Question and Answer session

NotesDifference between constituency and list MPConstituency MP: at a local level, represent her constituents (individuals in electorate)Appointing JPs at a local levelTaking a stance that is different to your political party is not unusual - National Party has a history of MPs taking such actions.Minister for Youth Affairs, Associate Minister for Education

LECTURE ELEVENInterest Groups and Social Movements in NZWhat are the types of interest groups and social/protest movements? Why are they important avenues for participation? How effective are they?

High cost / high intensity participationWe are going to limit this idea to interest groups and social

movements as forms of high cost participation.

What is an interest group?Groups that organise in order to influence public policy, but are not political parties. They are not seeking office - they are there to represent sets of interests (like-minded individuals who have joined these groups).

Closed vs OpenInsider vs OutsiderSectional vs PromotionalSectional = represent economic interests, with closed or limited membership and benefits to their members - what you are seeking is insider status with government or opposition. You don’t mind having your ideas co-opted, being part of an élite network.Promotional = based on values, with open membership and argue that the benefits of their lobbying have much greater benefit to society (issue and identity based, not interested in representing one particular group of people) - much more open as to who their members might be. Promotional groups relish the label of being ‘outsider’ groups - they don’t want to be up, close and personal with particularly political parties --> more focused on civil society and mobilising people.

Interesting point about promotional groups:Some promotional groups shift from this to becoming insider groups over time, which is part of their decision to have more influence. e.g. Green Party has morphed from a social movement to having more structured and membership-based, then they become a political party. This is an interesting example to show us that these things aren’t fixed, and are dynamic and changing.

Insider groupsHave access to government - downside of this is that it can limit the capacity of the groups to speak out. They can’t dispute results because they were involved in making the deal.

Outsider groupsNo insider status, but they love having the freedom of being vocal in the media and are not silenced in their involvement with key people.

Given that we know business interests and workers interests are taken care of by outsider groups, we can see that we ended up with the Employment Contracts Act (significant overhaul of industrial relations in 1991) and Employment Relations Act in 2000. The biggest lobby group for those changes was the Business Roundtable. The Roundtable is typically an élite group - they are CEOs or directors of major New Zealand businesses e.g. Fonterra, Fisher and Paykel. The Roundtable was very influential in shifting its relations into a more deregulated model. Unions tended to prefer Labour, especially in 2000 when they worked with them to make reforms.

Why are interest groups significant?For democracy to work well, there have to be other opportunities to participate politically to hold government to account. If issues arise, there is an opportunity for all of us to have some say.Democratic / representative role - between elections especially, sometimes political parties are hopeless at representing certain issues, so interest groups have to take it upPolicy implementation role - need groups to support it through the media, but also tangibly delivering policyPower resources - financial, membership, organisation and information. More money or more members will exert different influences at different times. Different interest groups will do varied research to advise parties as to their agenda and policies.

Are interest groups a good thing?Yes• Because they provide these additional avenues for participation• They counteract the dominance of executive government - at the moment, after the last election when Labour lost, we had to think about the resources those opposition parties had. Are Labour and Green aligning together on the NZ Power issue?• They are sounding boards for new policy proposals - a lot of policy work goes on behind the scenes which we don’t see, and interest groups can have an influence on this policy work.• Provide feedback on existing policies and process of implementation

No• Participation only by those who can afford it (Social bias of participation) - participation in interest groups is only undertaken by those who have the money, time, skills and resources• Proliferation of demands and consultation makes business of governing slow - if we had to consult with interest groups on every single issue, we would never get anything done, and slowing down the policy-making process which isn’t always a good thing• Interest groups are only serving the interests of their members and not public interest - on the one hand pluralism, we have the right to lobby and join an interest group - but the argument is that actually, not all interest groups are created equal. Although we can all be represented or start a group, neo-pluralists would argue that businesses have greater influence compared to other interest groups because both sides of government need businesses. All parties will always listen to business.Neo-pluralists would say that Business Roundtable would be an élite group

Are they effective?How successful are they? We need to be able to measure what counts as ‘successful’.

How do we measure success?1) Did we see policy change?2) Did they help produce this change?3) Was there public awareness? (the process of ‘agenda setting’) - they may not get the

outcome they want, but did they get their ideas out in the open?4) Is there continued funding? - if they keep getting funding, it is an indicator that they are

an effective interest/promotional group

Business Roundtable:6 key policy reforms of the 80s and 90s

Child Poverty Action Group:Court case over “Working for Families” (2010-2011) - used the courts as an avenue to create change. They took their case to court, but didn’t win... but it did give child poverty an increased profile for a period of time.

Interest groups as “old” politics:Interest groups tend to be divided by rural and urban.Do you join something because you are passionate about the issue?

New social movements - how they differ:

Challenge the ideas of traditional political authority - they don’t necessarily think that governance always govern for the people, and aren’t afraid to challenge norms through protest activity. It is about educating society to allow them to challenge government as well.

Elites can’t best represent citizens - similar socio-economic backgrounds, well-educated people tend to be MPs. Some would argue that the professionalisation of politics makes it even more élitist.

Political parties have been captured by sectional interests - Labour: unions, workers? National: farmers, rural, business?

Interested in moral issues

Scholars would say it’s impossible to think about Left/Right, and need to explore Authoritarian/Liberal social views etc.

TYPES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTSe.g. feminist, Maori, peace, LGBT, indigenous, civil rights

Dominant strategies of such social movements:outsider activism, non-traditional lobbying, protest and civil disobedience, participatory

An example of this is the Occupy movement

NEW ZEALAND CONTEXT:Protest action isn’t really new in NZMaori resistance to land confiscation, suffrage protests of 1880s, 1951 Waterfront Strike, 1977-78 Bastion Point.

Greenpeace is an example of a New Zealand social movement with regard to environmental issues.

Have these been effective and successful movements?Examples of success, failure and ongoing:It was effectively a success at Bastion Point. The Land was returned to Ngäti Whätua (Government acted on Tribunal recommendation in 1988)Springbok tour was not cancelled, but there was domestic and international awareness as a result of the protests and actions of interest groups.Greenpeace have ongoing campaigns.

TAKE-AWAY POINTS FROM THIS LECTURE:

LECTURE TWELVEThe Party System in NZWhat is a party and what do they do? What is a party system? How has the party system evolved in NZ? Do we still have a two-party-dominant system? Do parties facilitate political participation?This lectures moves on from strict civil society understanding, through to political parties.

Recap from last Lecture:Low-intensity minimal participation vs High-intensity participation

TODAY’S LECTURE: Important for my essay Question 6A!

What is a political party?Sartori says that they are the central, intermediate and intermediary structure between society and government - we often think of society as where the interest groups sit, but they are not seeking office: political parties often emerge out of interest groups but ARE seeking office. They are an ‘intermediary’ - intimately tied to elections.

The state vs Civil society (political parties sit between the two)

In NZ, a registered political party has to fit regulations set by the NZ Electoral Commission (independent agency - a critical part of building a democracy, and support the idea of free and fair elections). Requirements include:• Acceptable party name• Provide evidence of 500 members• Evidence of having a set of rules on party membership and candidate selection• Provide name and contact details of a party secretary

The functions of political parties (often interwoven with rules of special interest groups):• Provide accountability (particularly to voters)• Act as signposts, giving cues to voters (idea of political parties a long time ago was that

we elected people as independents - “you elect me, and I go off to parliament, and I do what I think is best for you” - this was known as the Trustee model (assuming that most people were working class and didn’t understand politics as well as the independent MP)... eventually, independent MPs started to find like-minded MPs in parliament, and started to form political parties at the turn of the century onwards. Once political parties are formed, agendas are formed and people start to make up their minds about which political party they would vote for.

• Prevents government by bureaucrats, and interest groups - they are a “third force”: it was more than just one individual parliamentarian working, but a collective of like-minded people (the ‘political party’)

• Represent the interests of their members - idea that political parties aren’t going to try and win all the voters they can, but also representing the interests of their members, which most political parties see as important. Party membership is in decline and what it means for the legitimacy of political parties - they are increasingly operated as a ‘cartel’ or a business organisation (very centralised, what the key higher level people want policy to be)

• Promote participation

What is a party system?Ware (Oxford University professor in Political Science) says “a party system is the pattern of interactions between political parties organised within a given political system” - means that every political system (like ours) will have an institutional design that will undermine or support the existence of political parties.

Interactions between National and Labour were bipartisan - not just that there were two parties, recognised their roles as government vs opposition, and agreed on certain issues

There are different types of party systems:- two-party systems = e.g. NZ pre-1978, USA- Moderate multi-party system (4-7) = e.g. NZ, Germany

Parties can either be major (more than 20% of vote), minor (between 3% and 20%) or micro (less than 3% of vote).

How has the party system evolved in NZ?1. Pre-party phase (1853-1890)2. One-party phase (early 1900s) - not necessarily authoritarian: looking at one party has

formed, and the rest are operating in a semi-independent fashion3. Three-party phase (1916-1935) - Labour organised itself as a mass party - Liberal and

Reform parties haven’t formed into National yet4. Two-party phase (1936-1978) - stays in place arguably until 19785. Early multi-party phase (1978-93) - this is why in the argument of Do electoral systems

determine the type of party system we have? our party system was changing before our electoral system changed.

6. Advanced multi-party phase (1993-today) - debates over how many parties our system would sustain - everyone decided it would be about 4 or 5 (as a ‘short transition period’)... this transition is still going on.

Early-multi party phase

Bob Jones was a libertarian: pro nuclear-free, wanted to get rid of defence forces - the free market should be the most important thing, and individuals should have the freedom to make choices and decisions and take responsibility for those.

Alliance - Mana Motuhake, NewLabour and Green Party combined

Advanced multi-party• Traditional left/right on economic issues (Labour and National) - campaigned as ideological adversaries• Expectations that MMP could support 5 parties• Advent of MMP stimulated growth of new parties• Post-material / identity issues (these aren’t found on a left/right spectrum) - you have to

look at the natural political cleavages within a society: it is these which will end up having a sustainable political party, not just a protest party for a short time (Greens/Maoris)

• Protest parties (anti-gambling party for example) or centre parties (United Future for example) - they might start off as protest parties, but in order to capture more votes, they move to the political ‘centre’

• Longevity of centre parties is never guaranteed - major parties are good at carving off votes from the centre and thus neutralising the focus of protest

Combined two-party vote: percentage of voters going to major parties falling, and minor parties falling

LECTURE THIRTEENNZ’s Party System + The Major PartiesThis lecture will revolve around aspects not covered in Lecture Twelve, followed by an analysis of the complete 13th Lecture syllabus.

IMPORTANT FOR ASSIGNMENT QUESTION 6A:Barry Gustafson is one of the key writers of the major New Zealand political parties.

What was happening to the two-party vote over time?Relationship between two major parties losing vote share over time + increase in minor parties.

Why did the two-party system last so long? (similar to 6A assignment question)• Societal explanation

• no major social divisions or cleavages - we didn’t have a lot of social divisions or conflicts based on identity or interests in society.

• two parties enjoyed broad coalitions of support - general consensus between the two: there was no need to go to the extremes of left/right-politics, but rather to attract the moderate voter (Anthony Downs’ median voter theory)

• Electoral explanation• FPP system (Duverger’s Law) - relationship between electoral system and party

system? FPP, by design, is very much in favour of larger political parties. It is difficult for a non-parliamentary party to maintain momentum as an organisation outside of parliament (i.e. interest groups or social movements)

• geographical concentration of support - FPP systems require geographical concentration of support. Historically, rural electorates tended to vote National, whereas urban electorates tended to be Labour voters. (Draw links to theory in research)- density of particular voters inside a particular electorate

• Doctrinal explanation• lack of ideological spread - strong consensus over the Keynesian welfare state, role

of state in ownership of assets, limited immigration etc.• electoral success based on moderate policies - “pitching to the median

voter” (appealing to “middle New Zealand”); these voters may be issue-specific or, at least, open to different ideas.

1987: 92% of the vote went to major parties, 8% went to minor parties(previous year was the release of the Royal Commission document)2002: 38% minor parties, 68% major parties - really starting to see MMP come into effect

Does this indicate the end of the two-party dominance?Arguable: time at which two parties no longer dominated.

Why are the major parties in decline from 1978?• growing economic uncertainty (stagflation, oil shocks, Muldoon’s Think Big policies)• declining trust in government and politicians (driverless days, government regulation

becoming too over the top)• less homogeneous society - multicultural diversity, growing concerns of social

movements (marginalised people in society, resulting in peace and feminist movements for example)

• voters less loyal, hence more willing to experiment - people are starting to think differently about major parties

• MMP electoral change• Nagel on predictions - How many parties will New Zealand have under MMP? in

1994: uses the concept of cleavages in society to demonstrate how many parties we will have under MMP. (Refer to research document)... economic intervention or free-market? (economic divide), conservative or liberal (social divide), ethnic divide (Maori party)

Debate over whether New Zealand has a multi-party system continues.

The type of party system is strongly correlated with the type of electoral system BUT the party systems also reflect divisions in our society (social cleavages/divisions)

Conclusion which can be drawn: suggests that the longevity of National and Labour is continuing, despite a clear change in the party system.

Poll Results from 2011 show that polled results tend to be overly ambiguous - once the media show these results to the public (that National and Labour’s possible share of vote would be large), people start to consider MMP-style psychology: that minor parties should have a greater share. On the whole, you find that actual minor party vote is higher than previously predicted.

Voters often vote by economic and social spectrumEconomic = socialist vs capitalist (interventionist/state control vs free market)Social = conservative vs liberal

Free market is increasingly being considered as a more positive option, unlike in the 1970s when there was a great deal of hesitancy, in favour of government intervention.

Centripetal distribution - Labour and National are both increasingly moving towards the centre of the economic spectrum

Labour: co-operative and egalitarian society, active and redistributive state, universal welfare, liberal social agenda, environmentalism and anti-nuclearism, separate provision for MaoriNational: free enterprise economy, limited state, individual freedom and self-reliance, personal and national security, patriotism, commitment to links with Britain

Traditional versus neo-liberal goals in terms of policy:

OLD NEW

mixed economy free market economy

state regulation and control less state intervention and control

universal welfare targeted welfare

high taxation low taxation

equality of income equality of opportunity

collective spirit individual pursuit

Both Labour and National accepted aspects of this new ideology.Finance Amendment Act 2004: debt at prudent levels (accepted by both parties)

National has moved away from Muldoon-style leadership and policy, but Labour’s reinvention and shift to the right has not just been about pragmatism and being pro-market, but also due to a set of ideas called Third-Wave Policies (Renewal of Social Democracy by Anthony Giddens) - emphasis of everyone getting back to work as opposed to the increasingly expensive Keynesian welfare state

Under what conditions might either National or Labour face electoral decline?

CONCLUSION:“voter fatigue”

GUEST LECTUREPita Sharples - Maori Party-

LECTURE FOURTEENThe Minor PartiesFunctions of minor parties, types of minor parties which emerge and challenges

What are the functions of minor parties?• Avenue for protest - in terms of how they come about, but also the types of voters they

attract• They facilitate tactical or strategic voting - especially with MMP.• Contribute to a more representative parliament - one concept around representation

is “mirror representation” (idea that parliament reflect who the members of society are - are a microcosm of society)

• Promote non-mainstream issues - e.g. “no airport noise” political party in Australia... these issues aren’t as broad or moderate as bigger parties whose aim is to get into government

• Their idealism may be an antidote to the pragmatism of the major parties - inspiring us to vote for parties with ideals and values, fostering a broader sense of participation (or - at least - a desire to participate)

• Curb the power of the two main parties - because, as we know, neither Labour nor National have managed to win the majority of seats since MMP was introduced in 1996

What types of minor parties are there?• Splinter parties, which break away from larger parties: e.g. NZ First (from National),

Mana (from Maori)• Cause parties, which begin as simple-issue parties or from social movements:

championing particular issues e.g. Green Party, Maori Party (also considered a protest party on some levels)

• Protest parties: Bob Jones’ New Zealand Party in 1984 (against Muldoon’s interventionist policies)

• Pragmatic-coalition parties, which sit in the centre and are mostly just interested with Left or Right governments (at the moment, ACT and United Future would be considered: either moderate or just willing to create coalition)

• Quasi-parties (none in New Zealand)

How do you create an effective minor party?(What is “effective”?)• Create a brand: make an identifiable mark with a message, building strong identity

(being proactive, not reactive), a strong media profile and maintaining your ideological space (an issue dimension space, both socially and economically)

• Choose a leader who personifies the party: we know that politics in New Zealand has developed in a way that who the leader of a party is has taken on a significantly increased importance in getting voted in (so, leader-preference polls are looked at closely by political parties)

• Build and maintain an effective organisation: engaging members and activists, with an appropriate organisational structure. Also making sure you have resources and political connections

• Target voter support• Build a sense of legitimacy: they know how to act when they get into parliament, prove

their competence as a political partner... not just sufficient votes, but their behaviour once they get in

Leadership styles in a minor party• REBEL LEADER: usually the leaders of splinter parties, but what happens to the party

once the rebel leader retires?• RECONCILING LEADER (including dual leadership model like Green and Maori

parties): usually the leader(s) of cause/pragmatic parties... they are interested in being in or working with government

What are the challenges with targeting voter support?• Establishing a niche constituency• Creating voter loyalty• Capturing and maintaining market share of voters

Why do they need to build a sense of legitimacy?In parliament, minor parties need to be able to demonstrate that they can do their job well and are a viable opposition party. They are actively doing something, rather than sitting there doing nothing.In government, minor parties need to create responsible partnerships. They also need to avoid “tail wagging dog” claims - like holding government ransom, something which New Zealanders strongly dislike.

What options are there for minor party governance?• Full coalition accords - since 2002, we have not seen a formal coalition government• Accepting ministries outside of cabinet whilst retaining some independence from

government - for example, Maori Party and ACT.• Support or confidence-in-supply agreement• Co-operation agreement• Memorandum or understanding• Opposition

What are the results of these choices?Full coalition examples• NZ First had nearly 30% support in 1996 - after coalition with Bolger government,

confidence fell significantlyMixed strategies• United Future - Peter Dunne’s public support has declined

CASE STUDIES

Green PartyThey have been successful in targeting and maintaining voter support. They have good public perception, and retained their political dignity.

News about Green and Labour’s “NZ Power” statement - does it suggest a partnership for the next election? Is it time for Labour and Green to start co-operating?

Maori Party1. Creating a brandParliamentary representation and maintaining connection with a political movement (tino rangatiratanga)2. Choose a leader who personifies the partyCo-leaders Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples (is it time for new and more youthful leadership?)3. Maintain an effective organisationDraw on kaupapa and iwi support (grass-roots participation) - long conversations on Marae is a very effective strategy4. Target voter supportFocus is on Maori seats, but also interested in getting your party vote as well5. Build a sense of legitimacyDemonstrate that their priority is policy for Maori - no strict economic issue dimension. We also shouldn’t assume that the voters are entirely homogeneous.

Do they face any challenges?• Turnout amongst Maori voters• Policy trade-offs• Mana Party

Green PartyNow the third largest party in New Zealand (11% = 14 seats)

What are the threats to minor parties?Costs of being in government - you can’t claim your policy wins, because the major party will get the kudos for it (particularly with cabinet collective responsibility, you can’t be against the government’s decisions)Future of the threshold seat - United Future and ACT?Minor party fragmentation - Maori and Mana?

CONCLUSIONMinor parties survival is dependent on the continuing relevance of social cleavages, working strategically with government (while still maintaining their minor party behaviour)... the major party still needs their support, but making sure they are not stealing their issues

Colin Craig and the Conservative Party?“prepared to work with anyone”... watch this space...

LECTURE FIFTEENMaori Politics and Maori RepresentationMaori self-governance (devolution and treaty principles), arguments on separate representation (pros and cons)

Didn’t attend lecture - will not need this topic for the exam.

LECTURE SIXTEENVoting in New ZealandQuestions for today’s lecture: Why do we vote the way we do? What has changed over time? Why do voters split their vote? What role does the media play in terms of influence?Readings from the textbook: Chapter 5.1, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7

KEY TERMSParty identification - Voter volatility - Protest voting - Strategic voting - Split voting - Wasted vote - Informal vote - mucking up ballot paper (intentional or unintentional)

EARLY THEORIES OF VOTING• Economic

• Voting is based on rational self-interest, and is seen as a product of short-term influences - current issues (1950s) - rational choice theorists were interested in individual behaviour, seeing the world as individuals being the most important actors, whose decisions are the most important to understand and assess how we vote collectively.

• “The collective is made up of individuals”

• We pursue self-interest: we aren’t voting for the betterment of society, rather to our own preferences and what is in our own interests

• Party competition is like a marketplace (Anthony Down’s An Economic Theory of Democracy)

• Psychological• Voting behaviour reflects the emotional attachments we form with

parties early on in our adult life; long-term factor that remains stable (1950s)

• Political psychology is a subfield of political science• Sociological

• Voting is a product of the social groups to which we belong (e.g. church, trade unions, family, rural/urban etc.)

• Voting is something broader than our own self-interest

Long-term influences on voting behaviourSocial background - e.g. class, incomeEarly experiences and learning - e.g. parents’ political loyalties, educationOrganisational memberships - e.g. trade unions, churchIdeology and political attitudes - e.g. role of the state, individual vs collective goals, materialist vs post-materialist valuesParty identification - which party do you identify closest with?These are not likely to shift from one election to another - they stay with us all our life.

Short-term influences• Policy proposals• Current state of the economy• Media coverage• Leadership• Influence of others

- Approximately 2/3 of party voters are party identifiers- The long-term influences in 2008 did matter, but there are of course arguments that party identification is falling.- However, 44.5% of people said they were not close to a political party.- If the n (sample size) is random and big enough, we can safely use the

result as a good indicator of electoral outcomes

VOTER VOLATILITY• Over time, voters are rejecting party labels

• We use them only as a cue on issues - we expect certain parties to respond to certain issues with certain policies, and we wait for these cues

• Less engaged and content with the political parties - we are no longer emotionally or habitually identifying with political parties

• View themselves as independent voters• Change voters from one election to next (swing voters) - it was once

argued that a certain age group of women were more likely to be swing voters, but this is unlikely to be the case nowadays and at the time, the data wasn’t sufficiently coded and counted to be deemed useful• Women’s voting: National used to be abhorred for its gender gap, but

John Key has closed this considerably under the current National-led government

• Wait and choose close to the election• Volatility may be sophistication

• Strategic voting - using opinion polls and media• We take what we read/hear in the media and in opinion polls and use

this to form our decision• Attitudes on issues more complicated and less economic in focus

• “new issue dimensions”: health, environment, education etc.• we look beyond economics

• Split voting possible in MMP electoral system• electorate vote and party vote

42% of voters had decided a long time ago who they were going to vote for in the 2008 New Zealand General Election - this is more likely to be due to long-term influences, and these people are likely to be party identifiers.This changed to 34.7% in the 2011 General Election.

30% of voters had decided during the campaign who they were going to vote for in the 2008 New Zealand General Election - this is more likely to be due to short-term influences.

We are seeing that there are more ‘volatile voters’, and are less likely to be party identifiers. Why? Economic, psychological, social factors! Short-term and long-term influences!

WHY ARE VOTERS BECOMING MORE VOLATILE?

- more highly educated and rejecting traditional ideologies- lack of attention to traditional support groups (e.g. Maori, low income

workers and elderly)- Anthony Downs’ median voter theory - both major parties are trying to

appeal to the moderate voter by moderating their policies- post-materialist voters, and more diverse electorates- competition from new parties for voter loyalty and support (more choice)- incentives provided by MMP for strategic and split voting

WHY DO VOTERS SPLIT THEIR VOTE?

Our split voting rate is much higher than Germany (whose MMP system we derived our current electoral system from) - some say it is confusion, but evidence from NZES suggests it is in fact a strategic decision.

This fits with the economic voting theory - that we choose what serves our best interests

• To avoid waste votes in electorate seat• Major party vote in electorates• Minor party vote with party vote

• Recognition that party vote determines share of seats parties hold in parliament• To ensure threshold parties win representation

• To elect a coalition partner• Epsom / NZ First / Green

OTHER FACTORS (NON-PARTISANS)• Economics

• Performance of the economy (macroeconomy)• Negative evaluations of prior performance• Voters perceive strongly that National has performed unwaveringly

during the economic woes during the last government term• National is generally perceived as the “natural party of

government” (National in government for 28 years, whereas Labour was only in for 6 years, during the period of the two-party system)

• Issues (2008)• Global warming• Crime

• Demographics (2008)• Ideological self-placement• Age (older folks tend to vote National - why? natural party of

government, FPP system meant you either voted National or Labour)

IN CONCLUSION...Long-term influences still matter, and party identification therefore is still a key determinant of voter choice.But, there is also an increase in the number of volatile voters. 30% of these are non-partisan (do not identify strongly with a particular party), but their choice when voting depends on issues, age, economics and leadersMMP supports strategic and sophisticated voting

LECTURE SEVENTEENThe Media and Election Campaigns in New ZealandQuestions for today’s lecture: What role does the media play in New Zealand politics? How do we as citizens engage with the media? Is campaigning a one-way street?Readings from the textbook: Chapters 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 in textbook

Media as the ‘fourth estate’The idea is that for a long time, media has been a key part of modern democracy. The media is an agent for facilitating engagement between voters and polity, and holding politicians accountable for their actions. The media also acts as a mediator for political debate and discussion.

PAST AND PRESENT...In the past, newspapers were seen to give everyone a voice, thus promoting democratic practice at a time when suffrage was expanding. Nowadays, we can read unmediated messages through the internet and social media... there are more avenues for political engagement apart from mainstream media.

Has politics become too ‘mediated’?The role of the media is to mediate - but this is increasingly being frowned upon. The media are criticised for limiting and distorting messages - that it is not giving citizens’ an authentic political voice. As a result, we are demanding unmediated politics.Social bias of participation - more educated people will have easier access to internet and new technologies to become informed and participatory citizens.

Media as a third partyVoters want information from political parties, leaders and candidates Letters to the editor Talkback radio Interactive YouTube political debates with live questionsParties, leaders and candidates feed this information back to voters - but they want to control their message Press releases Stage-managed eventsMedia are not just passive transmitters - Editors will have a say in what is being printed/produced - Talkback radio is considered one of the most free avenues for expressing your political opinion, and does tend to have a right-conservative view - The media is a market in and of itself: TV channels compete for viewers and watch ratings carefully

Fewer and fewer people are attending campaign meetings and/or rallies (in 2008, 84%), so it is evident that we rely on the media for getting our political information.

Newspapers and TelevisionSee PowerPoint slide.

“Top-down”Direct communication (e.g. public appearances, advertising)Access (favoured news outlets and journalists) - some media owners are clearly at different ends of the political spectrum

Communication tactics (‘spin’)

Leaks, timed releases and “burying”“It’s now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury”, Jo Moore, 11 September 2011 (when people are focused on other big issues, it’s a good time to bury other issues while hardly anyone cares)These tactics can work for or against a government - they can’t always control how it’s working.

Non denial-denial and ambiguityPoliticians are very careful about how they frame things they say.e.g. GST (2008) and increasing it in 2010, no sale - partial or whole - of state assets in first term (2008) --> changed in 2013

There is still a degree of social bias in participation.

Political opinion polls can be accurate if the question which is asked is straightforward, margin of error, large enough sample size.

Fact checkers, primarily in the USA (Washington Post Pinnochio test) - which presidential candidates have lied the most in the campaign? It is more difficult to do this professionally in New Zealand because of resources being stretched

Features of the recent campaignYouTube leaders debate in 2008Helen Clark and John Key were particularly image-savvy in 2008... Phil Goff in 2011, not so much.New Zealand Herald tended to favour Key over Goff in 2011 election (from Robinson in Kicking The Tyres)Teapot tape saga with John Key and John BanksVoluntary polls with only Yes/No answers

John Key as a brand - his shiny image will eventually dull.Economic management and leadership all mattered.