Cordon sanitaire

Potentially a bad idea, but hear me out...

Chris Hipkins has ruled out working with NZ First post election. Of course, Winston Peters had already ruled Labour out this year. Therefore, although only to the extent that you think Peters was good for it, it was kind of lame as far as moral stances from a PM goes.

Nevertheless, it is more than National has managed so far. In 2008, John Key ruled out offering anything to NZ First and that remained National’s position right up until the point when it became too inconvenient in 2017. Winston Peters then turned around and installed the same Labour government he now rants against.

The thing is, neither of our big parties can really be trusted to exclude NZ First when it counts. Both big parties have a history of entering into deals with the party to varying levels of subsequent regret. In that sense they are no different than the rubes and suckers who push NZ First over the line with votes when the party mounts a comeback from the wilderness.

Memories are just too short.

As cynical as Hipkins may now be playing things, it is possible for National and Labour to do something to halt the NZ First lifecycle in its tracks. And given that we really cannot afford another three years of low quality, poorly controlled pork barrel spending, it would be great if they could do that.

ACT and the Greens might well join in on the fun and games. TPM too, if they were so minded. I would not presume to forecast how that party would react, however.

The basic idea is a "cordon sanitaire" which, in politics, refers to a strategy to exclude a particular party or group from power, irrespective of its electoral strength. The phrase comes from the French for "sanitary cordon" and refers to quarantining areas to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. We use the French because the term was initially used in the context in post-World War I France to describe efforts to contain the spread of communism by preventing communist parties from joining governing coalitions.

There are various ways to erect a cordon sanitaire. One of them is a grand coalition. I wouldn’t favour this, however, as it tends to neutralise the power of the opposition, which is not good in a Westminster democracy like New Zealand.

Here’s how I would do it instead:

• The participating parties agree to a mechanism to abstain from voting in a manner that neutralises the influence of the party they aim to sideline.

• For instance, if a government bill is introduced and NZ First intends to vote against it, a calculated number of opposition MPs from the other parties would agree to abstain.

• Accordingly, the balance of votes would remains favorable for or against the bill, irrespective of NZ First’s stance.

Confusing? Here is a more grounded example. Let’s say that after the election, here is how things sit:

• National and ACT secure 58 seats combined.

• Labour, the Greens and TPM hold 55 seats combined.

Given this, the National/ACT coalition would have a majority of two when we exclude NZ First seats, so the opposition parties agree to allow those parties to take office.

However, if NZ First pledged to vote against the budget (or other item of government business) the government would be four votes short. To counteract this, a proportionate number of MPs from Labour, the Greens and TPM would agree to abstain to ensure the bill's passage.

In this example, three Labour, two Green and one TPM member would abstain, resulting in 58 votes in favour of the budget and 56 against, thereby ensuring its approval as if NZ First were simply not there.

There would be at least one downside to this approach. It might increase NZ First’s support, at least in the short term. The party and its supporters/marks would denounce the whole thing as a globalist, WEF, elite, anti-democratic stitch up.

But I would say this: in any population, there will be some people who are too distracted to remember back further than the previous election cycle and too eager to be fooled to apply past experience to future scenarios. In New Zealand, that population seems to represent around 6% of the national vote. There is nothing particularly democratic about that small proportion of the people weidling such disproportionate influence over every other election.

So I would like to see NZ First permanently neutered. I would like to see it very much.

All it would take is meticulous coordination, which would be difficult. You’d also need a robust sense trust fostered among the participating parties, which would be more difficult still. Lastly, you would need to be able to count on a shared commitment to a larger cause or principle that transcends individual party interests and short term ambition.

And, hey, dreams are still free aren’t they?