At its heart, democracy is about participation. And yet, there have been serious questions about the quality and quantity of public engagement expected in this year’s general election, given the Covid-19 crisis overshadowing everything at the moment in New Zealand. Prime minister Jacinda Ardern has therefore made the right decision to delay the election by a month.
Voter turnout has been trending downwards in recent decades, hitting a low point in 2011 of only 69.6% of eligible voters. It’s plausible that in 2020 it could drop below even this. If the election were still to be held in just a few weeks, as originally scheduled, this would have been especially possible.
The problem is that with Covid-19 restrictions in place due to the re-emergence of community transmission, together with the increased public focus on the health crisis, a normal election campaign cannot adequately take place. Yes, it’s possible that the mechanics of voting may have been able to be offered next month, but elections are supposed to be about more than just ticking a box.
A full democracy also needs a free and fair exchange of political ideas and debate.
These are suppressed when the public and political parties cannot legally participate in such longstanding electoral activities as door-knocking, public meetings, and generally having face-to-face contact. Moreover, the inclination to pay attention only to the immediate health crisis means that politics takes a distant second place, which is not useful when we also need to be talking about crucial issues such as climate change, economic inequality, or the housing affordability crisis.
With voting due to start soon, the legitimacy of the election was likely to be questioned, especially because a number of political parties – including the main opposition party, National – have suffered from the government soaking up all the attention in their management of the health crisis.
Shifting the election by four weeks was a relatively easy task for the PM, given that the date had not yet been officially actioned (it had merely been pencilled in). In choosing 17 October, Ardern has cleverly gone for the “Goldilocks option” – as three dates were suggested to her by the Electoral Commission (19 September, 17 October and 21 November).
Keeping the election date early, when her own party is polling sky-high would have looked like self-interest. By pushing it out she appears magnanimous and conciliatory and, as a result, she’s receiving plaudits. The decision reiterates Ardern’s strong decision-making and leadership skills that have helped the country get through the health crisis.
In reality, she had no choice but to go to a later date, especially with her own deputy prime minister informing the governor general that the majority of parliament was demanding a later election. So, by shifting the date by only a month, Ardern has blunted all criticisms, while yielding the least possible ground to opponents.
Will the delayed election create more room for Ardern’s Labour party to fall in the polls? After all, the government now has more time to experience problems with their management of the health crisis, as well as an economic recession that is expected to be more advanced by the time the new election date arrives.
It’s possible. But more likely, Labour’s coming landslide victory will be just as assured in October as it would have been in September. Betting markets suggest Ardern has a 93% chance of re-election, and that is unlikely to change with the new date.
Ardern’s political capital and reputation are such that a month’s delay is unlikely to change anything at all. Even an erosion of the government’s health management reputation probably won’t reduce their chances of winning the election. And the declining economy won’t be blamed on the government.
Nonetheless, New Zealand politics continue to be highly volatile. And it’s the minor parties that might be most affected by the extra month of campaigning – particularly Labour’s governing coalition partners, New Zealand First and the Greens. Both parties are fluctuating close to the all-important 5% MMP threshold they need to win to stay in parliament.
It’s too early to say how their fortunes might change as a result of the new date, but a shift of a few percentage points is highly possible and could still make a huge difference. Hence, while the extra month of campaigning might not change the fact that Labour looks almost certain to be governing after election day, it may end up affecting whether they will need either of their current coalition partners to stay in power, or if they can finally achieve the historic first of being able to govern alone.