THINK OF DENMARK – go on, think of Denmark. What springs to mind? Lego? The Little Mermaid? Squishy little segments of surprisingly tasty cheese? Bacon? Slaughtered Minks? How many of you are thinking of a social-democratic political party reversing its electoral decline by adopting the immensely popular immigration policies of insurgent right-wing populists? Not a lot. Hardly surprising. How often do New Zealand’s news editors think of Denmark?
“The Danish Solution” is worth considering, however, as our own General Election draws ever nearer. Since the political survival instinct is every bit as strong as all the others, we should not be surprised when failing politicians and failing parties adopt policies that outrage their supporters. If their ideological heresy is rewarded by the voters, then it’s amazing how quickly that outrage fades. If the voters remain unimpressed? Well, then there will be blood.
Faced with impending electoral disaster, what might New Zealand’s social-democrats throw overboard?
If Denmark offers us any guide, then the choice will be driven by fear of the racial “other”. The right-wing populist Danish Peoples Party made huge electoral gains in 2015 by offering to protect their country from the problems Sweden had brought upon itself by opening its doors to refugees and immigrants from the Third World.
Over the course of five decades, Sweden went from being one of the most racially homogeneous societies on Earth, to a global poster-child for the virtues of multiculturalism. For Swedish social-democrats, this policy of welcoming the persecuted and the vulnerable was an article of left-wing faith: proof that their country, unlike so many of their European neighbours, was not irredeemably racist.
Except that large sections of Swedish society were deeply hostile to multiculturalism. Among the Swedish upper-classes, in particular, the ideology of 1930s fascism lingered on long after the end of the Second World War. As the number of immigrants grew, the Swedish far-right grew with them. Racist xenophobia and Islamophobia inspired racist assaults and arson attacks on refugee centres. Undaunted, the Swedish social-democrats held firm to their multicultural dream – and were voted out of power.
Confronted with a similar choice, the Danish social-democrats opted to bend to the will of the majority. The massive surge of support to the Peoples Party’s hardline anti-immigration policies convinced them that the Danes had no intention of going down the same road as the Swedes. Failure to respond to the clearly expressed preferences of the electorate would condemn the Danish Social-Democratic Party to the status of an also-ran: politically correct, but reduced to making up the numbers for larger, more responsive and racially exclusive political parties.
Among the Danish anti-racist Left, the social-democrats about-face on immigration represented a shameful capitulation to all that was rotten in the state of Denmark. Better, they said, to remain pure and powerless, that to compromise their foundational principles in the name of reclaiming the party’s lost power.
But, as the Australian Labor leader, Gough Whitlam, told the ideologically obdurate and inflexible left-wing of the Victorian Labor Party in 1967, by advancing such an argument: “We construct a philosophy of failure, which finds in defeat a form of justification and a proof of the purity of our principles. Certainly, the impotent are pure.” Or, as the late Jim Anderton expressed it, rather less tartly: “One day in Government is worth a thousand days in Opposition.”
It may soon be the New Zealand Labour Party’s turn to make a similar choice between the impotence of morally unimpeachable Opposition, and the ethical compromises attendant upon winning, retaining and wielding political power. Just as Helen Clark was required to choose between acquiescing in the Court of Appeal’s foreshore and seabed decision, and seeing Don Brash’s National Party ride to victory in the 2005 General Election; or retaining sufficient Pakeha support to remain in office, even at the cost of alienating enough of Labour’s Māori support to make the formation of the Māori Party a realistic proposition.
It would be fascinating to know just how far the electorate’s opposition to Labour’s policies of “co-governance” extends. Given the extent of its polling and focus-grouping, one can only assume that Labour’s strategists are well aware of the consequences of rolling out the policy as currently configured. Were it not for National’s and Act’s clear determination to exploit the Pakeha public’s fear of co-governance, it would be easy to assume that only a small minority of the population are sufficiently exercised by the ideas contained in the controversial He Puapua Report to make them the key determinants of their voting choices.
That National and Act are unwilling to give away the co-governance issue (as Key gave away National’s opposition to the anti-smacking legislation in 2008) strongly suggests that Labour’s policy is shaping-up to be one of the hottest “hot-button” issues of 2023.
The only explanation for Labour’s Pakeha majority’s consistent refusal to jettison the party’s commitment to co-governance is its fear that such a decision would spark a full-scale revolt in its Māori caucus. A revolt so serious that the mass desertion of Labour’s Māori MPs to the Māori Party could not be ruled out.
In such circumstances, neither the continued loyalty of the Greens, nor that of the entire Labour caucus, could be counted on by the Labour leadership. The resulting parliamentary crisis could only be resolved by calling a snap election.
Could the adoption of “The Danish Solution” rescue Labour? Much would depend on how effectively the Labour leadership presented the range of choices confronting the electorate. If National and Act could be presented as the radical right-wing alternative, whose extremist policies would almost certainly spark serious civil strife, Labour would be able to present itself as a moderate hand-brake on the equally radical co-governance ambitions of the Māori Party and the Greens. Adroitly handled, Labour could emerge from the crisis as the only party capable of keeping the peace. As such it could call upon the electorate to give it the numbers in Parliament to frustrate the reactionary plans of the Right and the revolutionary programme of the Left.
National and Act would gnash their teeth in fury. The Māori Party and the Greens would condemn Labour as sell-outs, moral cowards and traitors. But when the smoke cleared, Labour would find itself finally free of its historical ties and obligations to Maoridom – those would now belong to the Māori Party exclusively. From this position, Labour could advance itself as the only reliable defender of te Tiriti o Waitangi and the democratic and egalitarian principles it embodies.
An altogether preferable alternative to Labour fading into political irrelevance, as a triumphant Right lays waste to New Zealand’s three most precious taonga: Egalitarianism, Democracy – and the Treaty itself.
Yeah nah. “Our Glorious Leader” is intimately tied to the UN/WEF block and their ideals. Co-governance is part of this set up as a means to de-power the middle class into public transport and government dependence.
Labour, certainly with Ardern at the helm aren’t going to get >35% of the popular vote unless Martians land on earth (or something similar) therefore will require the support of the Greens and Maori party. Therefore the best you are going to get is a de-emphasis of co-governance till after the election and then an implementation of it on the basis of “they forced us to” of it’s support partners.
That Labour can ignore co-governance going into the 2023 election is a fairy tale.
Yes Frank. who signed us up to the UN Charter and got the co governance ball rolling? So was National looking to de power the middle class and create government dependency? I think not. What does co governance have to do with public transport? You have lost me.
You nailed it in your last OP’s on the subject.
Yes, the Nordic states, (like Japan), are extremely homogeneous, and oft-quoted as shining examples for education, low crime and antisocial problems, health, quality of life and a range of other positive subjects because the will of the homogeneous people is united. And probably as boring as batshit too! But it remains to be seen with Sweden if the great melting pot experiment is a winner or tolerated by its formerly homogeneous people!
Denmark, btw, is a fave with the bicycle lobby as Copenhagen (a Simon Wilson pin up city) has unified unquestioning Danish folk pedalling their bicycles to somewhere, (maybe nowhere?), because they’re morally superior. It’s also mostly flat as a pancake and relatively compact, not that the bike lobby propaganda mention that inconvenient fact.
But if co-governance was such a vote winner, Willie may have come in from the cold in the past 5 years proudly telling the people all its virtues, rather than imitating a character from one of John Le Carre’s spy novels. And Labour wouldn’t be hiding this behind lead doors from the gaze of the voter cursing ACT’s very existence for outing it and making Jacinda have to resort to her best used car salesman lines to hide the secret away on the spot. You know, being all “transparent” as they are…!
I mean it appears Labour are implementing co-governance in some actions without telling us they have, albeit the results are causing great consternation for the public even if they don’t know what the cause of the issues are.
And I think the issues with a certain Ministers family getting hugely well paid, pointless government contracts only confirmed suspicions of what the face of open “co-governance ” will bring. So I guess I’d hide that agenda away from the public too.
But go on Labour, I dare you, run it as your 2023 point of difference election winner!
How about Labour returns to its roots to give a shit about the working class, you know those that labour…
Stare down the Maori caucus and let them defect knowing that if they do, a snap election is called and Labour campaign on delivering for all NZ regardless of ethnicity
I think they’d do well enough to win whilst also forcing the Maori Party to defend the indefensible race based rhubarb they spout which will either consign them to the dustbin or force them to shift toward the centre and begin thinking of all Kiwis.
Too long an article Chris. You could have said what you wanted to say in four words: Labour, drop co-governance completely.
Unfortunate that the Danish SD hasn’t taken any advantage of their mandate to do anything actually left-wing.
Do we all have to be adults in this co-governance matter and the way that it is handled. And Now??
What tangled webs we weave in order to deceive!
Let’s get back to basics eh?
Democracy – a system where the citizens have equal rights and an equal vote.
The Treaty – clearly ceded all tribal authority to the Crown while giving all Maori equal status as citizens. All other interpretations are lies intent on defrauding us of our rights.
Thus the concept of co-governance is heresy in a democracy.
Thus those fighting against this insidious co-governance are heroic supporters of our democracy rather than your description: “radical right wing”
“The Treaty – clearly ceded all tribal authority to the Crown while giving all Maori equal status as citizens”
So Andrew was the status granted to Maori citizens the same as the Pakeha citizen’s? Given that the crown seemed to help itself to the land of Maori citizens it would appear not. People from right side of the isle have openly acknowledged this, or at least they used to. I’m pretty sure theft does not sit too well with democratic principals either.
100%
Comments are closed.