The Power of Words, the Failure of Structures

A few weeks ago, I was reminded of a quote that touched me significantly: ‘He may seek notoriety, but we will give him nothing, not even his name.’ These words were spoken by the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in 2019 after a far-right terrorist murdered over fifty people at two mosques in Christchurch. At the time she held this speech I honestly felt paralysed, just like most New Zealanders. How come such an act of hatred and vitriol, fuelled by Islamophobic and conspiratorial thinking has reached New Zealand. I was reminded of this feeling last week upon hearing about the resignation of Ardern. A sudden end which felt similar to the sudden start of her exceptional political career. A leader whose tenure was defined by crisis management. In addition to the terror attack, she also had to endure a volcanic eruption and of course a global pandemic. But who was Jacinda Ardern? What defined the era of her tenure? And how did she impact the world during her time in the office of the Prime Minister? My belief is that she was a necessary figure during an uncertain era of international politics. She proved that a different style of communication could be successful. A style that detracted immensely from her other contemporary political leaders. She therefore maintained a status quo from getting worse. However, it becomes problematic when this status quo was already unjust from the beginning. Thus, she also fell short on addressing many of the core issues which she wanted to address.

Before laying out Ardern’s significance in the world, it’s important to outline the state of politics in the world as she entered government. In late 2016 the British electorate voted to leave the European Union. A campaign that was defined broadly by xenophobia and nationalism. Donald Trump was inaugurated in January of 2017, promising to ‘Make America Great Again’. He quickly defined what ‘Making America Great Again’ would look like, through travel bans from predominantly Muslim countries. In addition to the United States and Great Britain, the New Right was also on the rise in the European Union. Marine Le Pen became a Presidential hopeful in France, and Matteo Salvini’s Northern League entered government in Italy. Political centrists often struggled to address the rise of the New Right and fell short on combatting them. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested that dialogue with fascists like Steve Bannon is necessary to ‘build bridges’. This ‘building of bridges’ was seen in Austria, when Sebastian Kurz of the centre-right Peoples Party became Chancellor after forming a coalition with the far-right Freedom Party. It could also be seen in Denmark when Mette Frederiksen, the Prime Minister strongly cut back on Muslim immigration. She pushed her Social Democratic Party to embrace Islamophobic sentiments. Both the centre-right and the centre-left have normalised such positions, rhetoric and policy in their respective countries. This has come so far that Italy is now governed by Giorgia Meloni, a person who has openly defended Benito Mussolini in the past. In a world that was shifting more towards reactionary politics, Jacinda Ardern would successfully choose a different style of communication. Unlike opportunistic contemporaries in Europe, she chose not to embrace nationalism or xenophobia into her style.

Jacinda Ardern quickly became a crisis manager in her tenure, having to deal with multiple immense crises. Most other New Zealand Prime Ministers in recent history ever had to put up with even one such challenge. In particular in the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic she was praised nationally by many, including former Prime Minister John Key for her communication skills. She remained calm, collected and precise when pursuing solutions for potentially devastating crises. She always made it clear that we were ‘a team of five million’. Everyone was involved in solving this crisis, no matter the cultural background, sexual orientation, or class position. Through such leadership she could unite the country behind her government’s actions, providing an understanding of the necessity for the action. This was visible during the first Covid-19 lockdown of 2020. With daily press conferences, and strong updates on cases, we as the population could see how our actions of staying at home had an impact on society. It became visible how cases diminished during the first lockdown. This was consecutive with the rapid rise of Covid cases in the United States of America. Instead of taking adopting a similar method of communication, a ‘Team of Americans’, President Trump decided to leave all decision making to the Governors and the individual themselves. Thus, the number of cases rarely effectively dropped during his tenure in the White House. While Covid raged its way through the United States and Europe, New Zealanders could enjoy a relatively normal life. There were no mandates for masks or social distancing. New Zealand was a bubble of normality in a time of chaos. Not only were the policies effective, but also how the Prime Minister chose to communicate those, integrating every New Zealander into the process of saving lives. Integration was key to her communication. Unlike the general style of her global contemporaries, who built their career on isolation, Ardern chose to integrate the public into her communication. This is where the quote from the beginning is so significant. To combat bigotry, racism, extremism and terrorism is by embracing concepts that extremists reject. The concepts a society should embrace is more integration, more openness. Politicians cannot present a moderated manifesto of extremism. She rejected this, even rejecting to mention the name of the Christchurch shooter. This is again in stark contrast to the United States, where one side of the political spectrum hail names such as Kyle Rittenhouse as heroic. She sought necessary reforms after such an act of violence, like the ban on military weapons. A policy that united the government with the opposition, as the National Party voted in favour of the Bill. The government and the opposition were integrated in a process of protecting the lives of the community.

24/01/2023

Despite her expertise in communication, and the handling of crises, there are also critiques of Ardern’s tenure. She fell short on many of the projects she wanted to pursue, such as the providing of housing. Like in many other countries, New Zealand suffers from explosive rent prices. Working class families often struggle to keep the roof over their head, let alone owning that roof. Her main initiative KiwiBuild was a significant failure, struggling to provide new and affordable housing to families. Since then, the government has not found other strategies of combatting this problem. There are severe social disparages between Pakeha (white New Zealanders) and the indigenous Maori community. The life expectancy for a Maori male lies at about 73 years. Whilst that of a non-Maori male lies at 80.3. Maori are more likely to experience material hardship compared to Pakeha New Zealanders. Since she took from National in 2017, not much has changed about this status quo. To reduce these disparages, bold and effective social programs are necessary. But this raises the question regarding finance. This is because Ardern has both in her 2017 and 2020 campaign denied implementing a capital gains tax. This is a rather radical position, as most MEDC countries have such a capital gains tax. Without the collection of more tax, it becomes questionable how more radical social programs can be financed. One criminal justice reform, Ardern can also be criticised. In the 2020 election, New Zealanders had the ability to vote on a referendum to legalise cannabis. Which would have been a necessary step to make the justice system more progressive. If cannabis consumption was no longer seen as a criminal act, many former convicts could have gotten their records expunged. Although voting in favour of its legalisation, she refused to take a public position during the election campaign. The referendum failed by a narrow margin. This was an act of political opportunism as her Labour party won an absolute majority, by winning over conservative voters from the National party. To take a position would have been a risk on her part. It could have convinced more people to vote in favour of the referendum. But it could have also convinced more to vote against the Labour party. This could have prevented the absolute majority which she attained in the parliament. She refused to take a risk out of comfort, hence preventing a possible democratic mandate for necessary criminal justice reform.

Internationally Jacinda Ardern represented a chance that European and American leaders have wasted. She re-defined the style of crisis management and stayed away from reactionary rhetoric and policy. She proved that leading with kindness and compassion is a leadership of strength. This can be verified by comparing her tenure during the Covid-19 pandemic to that of the reactionary leaders that defined this era. Hundreds of thousands died in the United States, due to Donald Trump’s denial regarding the danger of the virus. All this happened while New Zealanders lived lives of relative normalcy. She sought integration rather than division. Ardern was re-elected in 2020, whilst President Trump lost his bid to Joe Biden that same year. New Zealand was a country were far-right populism did not prove to be a successful strategy. Whilst the political centre in Europe struggled during this era, New Zealand thrived under its Prime Minister. New Zealand was spared a reactionary turn, and that’s thanks to a leader who took a stance and refused to embrace rhetoric of division. This can be a lesson to the entire western world on how to combat the continued rise of global right, and how to successfully seek political strategies that communicate integration instead of division.

Jacinda Ardern successfully maintained the liberal democratic status quo of New Zealand. In a time that was plagued by parties and leaders that threatened democratic institutions. She successfully combatted such rhetoric through excellent communication strategies. Her approach sought to unite a team of five million. She did not pivot the population against one another. Did not seek to divide, unlike the reactionaries of her time. She accomplished what so many politicians on the political centre failed to do, preventing a turn towards the extremist right. Unfortunately, she also maintained a country that remains socially unjust, with a housing market that remains unacceptably high. She failed to position herself on important issues that could have brought forth necessary judicial progress in New Zealand. In the end Ardern’s successes lie in her communicative efforts, showing the world that a different style could also be successful. When examining the state of the New Zealand society when compared to the major divisions that have split countries like the US, France and Brazil, we can be proud of her government’s achievement. In New Zealand we are spared of having to defend liberal democracy against thuggery. Instead, we can focus on more pressing issues, which indeed her government did fall short off addressing.