Lyricist Art Garfunkel penned the words to the popular hit “Bright Eyes.”
Amongst its lines was, “How can the light that burned so bright suddenly burn so pale?”
It seems to be an appropriate metaphor when discussing the New Zealand election outcome. And it is the question on everyone’s lips after the end of Labour and the legacy of “Ardernism” in the land of the Long White Cloud.
Ardernism is the name ascribed to the brand of politics Jacinda Ardern brought to New Zealand politics during her time as its prime minister.
The election verdict meted out by New Zealanders on Oct. 14, 2023, was savage, harsh, and decisive. The ruling Labour Party suffered a humiliating swing of 23.1 percent against it, losing 31 of its previous 65 seats.
In anyone’s language that is a wipeout.
On the other hand, the centre-right Nationals had a surge of 13.4 percent in its vote, cementing its place and National Leader Christopher Luxon as Prime Minister-designate.
So, what went so horribly wrong for Labour and the legacy of Jacinda Ardern?
Initially, short-term superficiality trumped substance. Ms. Ardern’s warm open smile, which gave reassurance that her rhetoric was genuine and deliverable, provided an exciting new freshness to New Zealand’s public life.
This was a phenomenon not previously experienced. The polls and her emphatic election wins told the story. People loved her. She was popular.
Ms. Ardern was from the Left and made virtue signalling an art form. People would love to believe that politics could be all about smiles, photo opportunities, and travelling the world. She was feted as a female role model for aspirants around the world.
There is no doubt that Ms. Ardern put her country on the map. Her face was recognised by billions across the globe, even though she was the prime minister of a relatively small country without immediate relevance to world affairs.
Legacy of Non-Performance
Warm, fuzzy, and empathetic rhetoric is hard to beat especially when it is packed full of promise. As time slips by, however, people will make their assessment on the basis of on-the-ground delivery, practical outcomes, and consistency—not just the oratory.That appears to be the fault line that saw New Zealanders desert Ms. Ardern’s Labour Party and her successor Chris Hipkins.
Try as he might, having been her loyal deputy, Mr. Hipkins could not disentangle himself from the multiplicity of policy failures and undelivered promises, which ultimately was Ardernism.
Who can forget the powerful imagery of a hijab-wearing prime minister visiting the survivors of the ugly Christchurch Mosque massacre? From warm physical embraces with the employment of sympathetic language, it seemed the prime minister could do no wrong and make no missteps.
Yet when confronted with protestors expressing their democratic right to oppose her government’s COVID policies (which some did describe as quite extreme), it became obvious that the charm offensive, for which Ms. Ardern had become famous, was only reserved for those who agreed with her brand of politics.
A national leader cannot afford to be so obviously partisan. A leader cannot just live on a never-ending trail of happy snaps.
The music does need to be faced. Jacinda Ardern was clearly not willing to do so.
As the economy became even more difficult and her legacy of non-performance was being noticed by her fellow New Zealanders, she abandoned ship, leaving her mess to the hapless Mr. Hipkins.
Smiles and photo shoots don’t explain away the shortfall of 98,600 social housing homes out of a total of 100,000 that were promised. Not to mention the promised light rail project, which was to have been completed two years ago but still hasn’t even started.
The co-governance agenda with Māoris and proposed “hate” speech legislation, along with dual naming, also drove elector resentment. They needed a government focused on the real issues.
New Zealanders are hoping for a fresh start with a leader focusing on the practical and not the woke.
The lesson from across the “ditch” will reinforce Australian Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s approach to public policy.
He will be buoyed by the emphatic rejection of The Voice proposal to alter the Constitution by the Australian people, which happened on the same day that Australia’s cousins overwhelmingly rejected a woke Labour government.
A common trans-Tasman experience.
For a fire or light to last, it needs a constant energy source. Superficiality and expressed empathy aren’t enough.
That was Labour’s downfall (and that of The Voice) over the weekend.
