Understanding the growth of populism
The 2010s and 2020s have seen a populist moment recur in democracies worldwide. The Brexit debate in the UK, the rise of Marine Le Pen in France, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Narendra Modi in India and Donald Trump in the US all typify populist politicians.
They adopt anti-elite, pro-nationalist positions and are adept at using social and alternative media to bypass traditional media gatekeepers. They campaign against positions that enjoy cross-party consensus among establishment elites while being opposed by sizable constituencies of voters, and they deliberately provoke elites, whose attacks demonstrate to voters that the populists represent them.
They offer simple solutions to complex problems which makes them formidable campaigners, but they often struggle to govern competently once they acquire power. Voters regard populists as a means of registering their complaints about elite performance.
Liberal over-reach?
Defenders of populism argue that these movements represent democratic reaction to liberal overreach, the hollowing out of traditional political parties and soft censorship of Establishment filters that constrain genuine public debate. Disrupting such forms of bipartisanship is the goal of populist movements, not a drawback.
Seymour will welcome the criticism he’s receiving from state broadcasters. Act’s communications team are promoting clips of Seymour’s confrontations with journalists on their digital channels.
It is predictable that the legal sector is the most robust critics of this bill. Kings Councils and High Court judges are the nobility of the liberal establishment, and their ability to interpret the nation’s laws based on constitutional principles that remain undefined grants the judiciary considerable political power. So, it’s unsurprising that they are closing ranks against Seymour’s bill.
The Act leader will also appreciate attacks from agencies like the Waitangi Tribunal and Crown Law, and the letter to the Prime Minister and Attorney General signed by forty-two members of the Kings Counsel calling on the government to abandon his bill. Seymour replied “These guys oppose the Treaty Principles Bill because it gives everyone a say, even if you’re not a King's Counsel. Until now, unelected judges, lawyers and public servants have decided what the Treaty means. That's how we've ended up with divisive policies focused on ancestry.”
What do the public think?
Many voters may reason that if the nation’s top lawyers are against something, it is in their own self-interest to support it. Recent findings from the 2023 General Social Survey found that the public’s trust in New Zealand’s institutions has declined significantly since 2021.
Last month, Curia pollster David Farrar released a survey result suggesting widespread public support for the principles in Seymour’s bill. 46% were in support, versus 25% opposed and 29% unsure. If the numbers hold, a referendum on the Treaty principles would probably win.
Seymour might lose in the short term but win eventually
Seymour has compared his current campaign to the End-of-Life movement. Michael Laws first announced a member’s bill promoting assisted dying in 1995, but it took until 2021 for the law established by Seymour’s referendum on the issue to take effect.
His long-term success may depend on the nature of the next leftwing government and its relationship to the treaty. It’s likely that a Labour-Green-Te Pati Māori coalition would see the expansive return of co-governance-based policies, which could easily provoke a backlash for Seymour to capitalise on.
But there are reasons to doubt David Seymour’s credentials as an authentic threat to the established order. Most populist movements have a strong working-class voter-base. Some political theorists suggest “populism is the new socialism” and populists generally oppose mass-migration, globalisation and free trade, all issues that David Seymour strongly supports.
It’s also possible that voters will regard Treaty issues as a distraction now that the government has changed and they’d prefer politicians to focus on economic and cost-of-living issues. If demonstrations against the bill lead to political violence, civic disorder, or both, then Seymour will come under severe attack from his establishment critics.
The winners of the Treaty Principles Bill debate, so far, seem to be those parties with clear and confident stances on it – Act, Te Pati Māori, and the Greens. By contrast, National and Labour are the most uncomfortable about the Bill – they publicly oppose it but are also wary of alienating the 46% of the public who are in favour of it. It’s, therefore, going to be a difficult six months for both parties as they navigate the populist mood but cling to the status quo.
Finally, Seymour’s bill is not the only Treaty-principles related work underway. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is proceeding with the agreement between National and New Zealand First to remove provisions to the principles of the Treaty in twenty-eight key pieces of legislation. Goldsmith has indicated that some may have their relevance to the Treaty made explicit, others might be scrapped altogether.
Seymour’s bill will not pass this term. New Zealand First’s work is already in progress.
Key Sources
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Treaty of Waitangi: Christopher Luxon cannot stop voters having their say on Act’s bill (paywalled)
The Facts: ~2:1 voters support the reworded Treaty Principles Bill
Matthew Hooton (Herald): How Christopher Luxon can clean up the Treaty Principles Bill mess (paywalled)
Moana Maniapoto (E-tangata): Be very careful what you wish for, Mr Seymour
Danyl McLauchlan (Listener): Act’s David Seymour follows in Trump’s footsteps by saying things politicians are not supposed to (paywalled)
Dr Bryce Edwards is a politics lecturer at Victoria University and director of Critical Politics, a project focused on researching New Zealand politics and society. This article was first published HERE
They adopt anti-elite, pro-nationalist positions and are adept at using social and alternative media to bypass traditional media gatekeepers. They campaign against positions that enjoy cross-party consensus among establishment elites while being opposed by sizable constituencies of voters, and they deliberately provoke elites, whose attacks demonstrate to voters that the populists represent them.
They offer simple solutions to complex problems which makes them formidable campaigners, but they often struggle to govern competently once they acquire power. Voters regard populists as a means of registering their complaints about elite performance.
Navigating the Treaty Principles Bill
Act leader David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill passed its first reading in Parliament yesterday. There was considerable disorder during the proceedings. Labour MP Willie Jackson was suspended from the House. Te Pati Māori Party MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and her fellow Te Pati Māori MPs performed a haka. Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee was forced to evacuate the public gallery and suspended Maipi-Clarke from the House for twenty-four hours.
Neither the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, or either of National’s senior Māori ministers were in attendance. Supporting the bill to select committee was a coalition commitment for National and New Zealand First. Both have confirmed they will not vote for it in its second reading, meaning it will not be passed into law.
Christopher Luxon has repeatedly attacked Seymour’s bill, stating on the day of the reading “You do not go negate, with a single stroke of a pen, 184 years of debate and discussion, with a bill that I think is very simplistic.”
But having passed first reading, Seymour will now have a six month-long select committee process to make his case for the legislation. He has signalled his intention to conduct an extensive public relations campaign, holding town-hall meetings and public debates.
Many political commentators have observed that Seymour is already conducting his 2026 election campaign, which will pitch to National voters that Seymour displayed more courage standing up for rightwing values than Christopher Luxon.
Friendly fire is also coming from the other direction – Luxon has come under heavy criticism for agreeing to even limited support for Seymour’s bill. Chris Finlayson, former Attorney-General and Treaty Minister in the John Key government has warned that the bill will damage National’s relationship with Māori and observed “We were on such a good path in a bipartisan way, over many years we've been working toward trying to undo the burdens of the past so that we could move to the future together as one, and a lot of that's being undone now.”
Act leader David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill passed its first reading in Parliament yesterday. There was considerable disorder during the proceedings. Labour MP Willie Jackson was suspended from the House. Te Pati Māori Party MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and her fellow Te Pati Māori MPs performed a haka. Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee was forced to evacuate the public gallery and suspended Maipi-Clarke from the House for twenty-four hours.
Neither the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, or either of National’s senior Māori ministers were in attendance. Supporting the bill to select committee was a coalition commitment for National and New Zealand First. Both have confirmed they will not vote for it in its second reading, meaning it will not be passed into law.
Christopher Luxon has repeatedly attacked Seymour’s bill, stating on the day of the reading “You do not go negate, with a single stroke of a pen, 184 years of debate and discussion, with a bill that I think is very simplistic.”
But having passed first reading, Seymour will now have a six month-long select committee process to make his case for the legislation. He has signalled his intention to conduct an extensive public relations campaign, holding town-hall meetings and public debates.
Many political commentators have observed that Seymour is already conducting his 2026 election campaign, which will pitch to National voters that Seymour displayed more courage standing up for rightwing values than Christopher Luxon.
Friendly fire is also coming from the other direction – Luxon has come under heavy criticism for agreeing to even limited support for Seymour’s bill. Chris Finlayson, former Attorney-General and Treaty Minister in the John Key government has warned that the bill will damage National’s relationship with Māori and observed “We were on such a good path in a bipartisan way, over many years we've been working toward trying to undo the burdens of the past so that we could move to the future together as one, and a lot of that's being undone now.”
Liberal over-reach?
Defenders of populism argue that these movements represent democratic reaction to liberal overreach, the hollowing out of traditional political parties and soft censorship of Establishment filters that constrain genuine public debate. Disrupting such forms of bipartisanship is the goal of populist movements, not a drawback.
Seymour will welcome the criticism he’s receiving from state broadcasters. Act’s communications team are promoting clips of Seymour’s confrontations with journalists on their digital channels.
It is predictable that the legal sector is the most robust critics of this bill. Kings Councils and High Court judges are the nobility of the liberal establishment, and their ability to interpret the nation’s laws based on constitutional principles that remain undefined grants the judiciary considerable political power. So, it’s unsurprising that they are closing ranks against Seymour’s bill.
The Act leader will also appreciate attacks from agencies like the Waitangi Tribunal and Crown Law, and the letter to the Prime Minister and Attorney General signed by forty-two members of the Kings Counsel calling on the government to abandon his bill. Seymour replied “These guys oppose the Treaty Principles Bill because it gives everyone a say, even if you’re not a King's Counsel. Until now, unelected judges, lawyers and public servants have decided what the Treaty means. That's how we've ended up with divisive policies focused on ancestry.”
What do the public think?
Many voters may reason that if the nation’s top lawyers are against something, it is in their own self-interest to support it. Recent findings from the 2023 General Social Survey found that the public’s trust in New Zealand’s institutions has declined significantly since 2021.
Last month, Curia pollster David Farrar released a survey result suggesting widespread public support for the principles in Seymour’s bill. 46% were in support, versus 25% opposed and 29% unsure. If the numbers hold, a referendum on the Treaty principles would probably win.
Seymour might lose in the short term but win eventually
Seymour has compared his current campaign to the End-of-Life movement. Michael Laws first announced a member’s bill promoting assisted dying in 1995, but it took until 2021 for the law established by Seymour’s referendum on the issue to take effect.
His long-term success may depend on the nature of the next leftwing government and its relationship to the treaty. It’s likely that a Labour-Green-Te Pati Māori coalition would see the expansive return of co-governance-based policies, which could easily provoke a backlash for Seymour to capitalise on.
But there are reasons to doubt David Seymour’s credentials as an authentic threat to the established order. Most populist movements have a strong working-class voter-base. Some political theorists suggest “populism is the new socialism” and populists generally oppose mass-migration, globalisation and free trade, all issues that David Seymour strongly supports.
It’s also possible that voters will regard Treaty issues as a distraction now that the government has changed and they’d prefer politicians to focus on economic and cost-of-living issues. If demonstrations against the bill lead to political violence, civic disorder, or both, then Seymour will come under severe attack from his establishment critics.
The winners of the Treaty Principles Bill debate, so far, seem to be those parties with clear and confident stances on it – Act, Te Pati Māori, and the Greens. By contrast, National and Labour are the most uncomfortable about the Bill – they publicly oppose it but are also wary of alienating the 46% of the public who are in favour of it. It’s, therefore, going to be a difficult six months for both parties as they navigate the populist mood but cling to the status quo.
Finally, Seymour’s bill is not the only Treaty-principles related work underway. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is proceeding with the agreement between National and New Zealand First to remove provisions to the principles of the Treaty in twenty-eight key pieces of legislation. Goldsmith has indicated that some may have their relevance to the Treaty made explicit, others might be scrapped altogether.
Seymour’s bill will not pass this term. New Zealand First’s work is already in progress.
Key Sources
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Treaty of Waitangi: Christopher Luxon cannot stop voters having their say on Act’s bill (paywalled)
The Facts: ~2:1 voters support the reworded Treaty Principles Bill
Matthew Hooton (Herald): How Christopher Luxon can clean up the Treaty Principles Bill mess (paywalled)
Moana Maniapoto (E-tangata): Be very careful what you wish for, Mr Seymour
Danyl McLauchlan (Listener): Act’s David Seymour follows in Trump’s footsteps by saying things politicians are not supposed to (paywalled)
Dr Bryce Edwards is a politics lecturer at Victoria University and director of Critical Politics, a project focused on researching New Zealand politics and society. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
If Seymour’s bill doesn’t pass a 2nd reading, National had better come up with a better way of dealing with entitled Māori, causing apartheid, before the next election or the country is doomed.
If we are not given a binding referendum similar to seymour's bill, then the gravy train, gaslighting, and identity politics will never end.
Spot on, Anon. Their plan is hatching fast as we speak. Seymour understood this issue could not wait any longer.
The clock is ticking....
Bryce Edwards is correct about one thing: if National continue to oppose the wishes of the vast majority of voters, then National is toast at the next election.
Continuous and continuing cowardly appeasement of the bullying, arrogant, disrespectful Maori Party and its financial backers, will destroy New Zealand society.
Either get rid of Luxon or face the consequences of being swept aside in about two years time.
New Zealanders will not be led by a coward.
The total rejection of the principles bill by government will open the door to interpretations of the treaty principles never previously imagined.
Maori will see rejection of a bill yet to be discussed in depth as a sign that any "principle" imagined by them and endorsed by the judiciary as a further step toward total autonomy.
Watch this space.
If National scupper the bill and there is wide public support then Act will demand a binding referendum as a condition of forming the next coalition government. Game ovet
The referendum should also include the issue of removing the Maori seats and Maori Electoral roll ( They have been redundant ever since NZ had universal sufferage) That would severely clip Waititi's wings
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.