Jon Johansson is probably the highest-profile of a new generation of New Zealand political studies academics (sorry Bryce Edwards – your time will come!) and his most recent book The Politics of Possibility (2009) doesn’t lack for ambition.
In the space of its 200 pages, Johansson attempts to: explain a theory of political leadership; classify every New Zealand government in history according to Erwin Hargrove’s preparation/achievement/consolidation cycle; provide one of the first considered assessments of Helen Clark’s prime ministership; determine whether John Key is Generation X or not; and unveil the ‘Centrist Project’ that will underpin the major change in New Zealand politics.
Inevitably, it ends up more than a little uneven. Some parts are quite strong, some seem a bit undercooked, and others . . . well, let’s just say that I don’t think the approach of summarising the problems of the pre-Key National Party by spending 1 ½ pages altering the lyrics of Bill Joel’s We Didn’t Start the Fire is likely to catch on amongst political studies academics.
By the end of Chapter Eight, he has relegated the Fifth Labour Government to being a mere ‘government of consolidation’. They shouldn’t feel too bad though — he argues that we have only ever had threefour ‘Big Change’ governments (‘governments of achievement’): Vogel in the 1870’s, Seddon in the 1890’s, the First Labour Government in the 1930’s, and the 1984-92 period of Rogernomics and Ruthanasia.
John Key, however, has the potential to be more than a mere ‘consolidator’ — Johansson says he has it in him to lead a ‘government of preparation’ and be the harbinger for the next ‘Big Change’ administration.
All he lacks, it seems, is a plan and vision. Fortunately, Johansson has one he prepared earlier. In Chapter Nine he sketches out “some long-term goals that will span multiple terms to maximise [Key's] potential as a preparatory leader, to serve as a bridge between generations, and to lead a new cycle in our politics” (p. 169). This is what he calls the ‘Centrist Project’.
And since this ‘Centrist Project’ sets out a specific policy agenda, that is what I want to focus the rest of this post on. As its name implies, what Johansson sets out is not uniquely suited to conservative political parties. Could the ‘Centrist Project’ be something that the progressive movement can learn from, or even adopt?
There are four components to Johansson’s project:
- Strengthening our democracy
- Water – New Zealand’s pre-eminent strategic asset?
- Tertiary Education – the path to freedom
- How to Govern – means as ends-in-the-making
Below, I’ve set out what Johansson means by each of these, along with a few comments of my own.
Strengthening our democracy
This involves four ‘interlocking’ issues: the electoral system; electoral finance; the Maori seats; and the republican debate, which he advocates that we broach by way of an eminent persons group. Together, these issues translate into “the larger idea of leading a vital democratic renewal by articulating an overarching vision about the direction of our democracy” (p. 169).
This does indeed amount to a worthy area for reform. It’s frustrating however how unbalanced the ‘Centrist Project’ chapter is. Out of twenty-five pages, sixteen are on this component, and ten of those are on the electoral system and the forthcoming MMP referendum, including an extended and out-of-place discussion of how National has mishandled the MMP issue in the past.
I also have reservations about how focussed on familiar issues this section is, rather than looking at new ways to enrich our democracy. What about the potential that information technologies offer for deepening citizens’ involvement in decision-making? Or how about some of the ideas being discussed abroad like a “Citizens Branch of the constitution” or even just thinking anew about how best to use referenda?
Water – New Zealand’s pre-eminent strategic asset?
This may be the most surprising inclusion, yet Johansson argues that, “Given ever-increasing global pressures on water as the world’s population growth continues apace and the global economy continues to expand . . . it is not difficult to predict water becoming a natural resource every bit as valuable as . . . oil” (p. 189). New Zealand’s relative abundance of water therefore makes it a vital strategic asset to be preserved, yet there are important challenges around threats to water quality, increased droughts, how much water we waste and whether and how to charge for it.
Johansson does a reasonable job of introducing what may be a new issue to many readers, but he doesn’t really justify why this is the environmental issue included in his ‘project’. At one point he calls it “a longer-term strategic issue” compared with climate change (p. 170), yet surely the process of decarbonising our economy is going to take decades? One can’t help suspecting that this issue appeals because, unlike climate change where National is at best a late-comer, it might be possible for Key (and perhaps Johansson) to get some credit for putting this on the public agenda.
Tertiary Education – the path to freedom
Johansson argues that tertiary education transforms people’s lives and opportunities, and knowledge and innovation are becoming increasing important to an economy’s success. He proposes setting up a Royal Commission to get past the “old ideological debates” and onto “first-principle questions” (p. 194). This might include transforming our universities into more specialised or elite institutions” (p. 193).
I’ve got a background in tertiary education policy, although, as I’ve noted, I do my work in that area through Education Directions rather than Policy Progress. I will note that my impression is that there isn’t any magic recipe to transforming the contribution of tertiary education — it’s about hard work leading to incremental improvement — and that a Royal Commission is unlikely to do much more than rehearse a pretty familiar series of issues and arguments. But, hey, maybe I’ve become mired in sector group-think and some fresh eyes would provide a much-needed circuit-breaker . . .
How to Govern – means as ends-in-the-making
Johansson argues that “the means employed by a government to give effect to its ends are intimately connected with the likely success or failure of its desired end goals” (p. 194) and that the other three components of his agenda “all rely upon political leadership that forges a new consensus or builds upon the cultural strengths that have withstood the test of time and events” (p. 195). This connects back to his advocacy of a flexible and open form of leadership, and his preference for a less partisan politics.
These sentiments appeal, but their effectiveness compared with (or pitted against) more confrontational, centralising or subversive approaches is not really demonstrated. Johansson cites Obama a few times, yet some would argue that his bipartisan approach, involving unilateral concessions, has been ill-equipped to deal with the well-disciplined rejectionist approach the Republicans have adopted since his election.
This post has been a bit critical of Jon Johansson in places, but actually I think setting out a ‘big-picture’ agenda the way he has was a brave and worthwhile thing to do. What he has come up is a useful conversation-starter for progressives to engage with, as much as for conservatives or centrists.
So what do you think? Has Johansson hit upon some or all of the issues that governments need to face up to over the next few decades? And what would be your four components for a ‘Progressive Agenda”?
Tags: democracy, Jon Johansson, tertiary education, The Politics of Possibility, water
Oh god David — is this just you trying to yank my arm for that guest post? Suffice to say that I rarely find myself on agreeing with Dr Johansson, and today is no exception.
I don’t know where to start so I’ll keep it short….I don’t believe in a centrist project — Without more detail I’d have to reject the entire notion that one is desirable. Centrism as I think he means doesn’t have much utility. And the bits you quote read like duck speak more than meaningful analysis.
I can give you my list of the 4 components of the Progressive Agenda (globally) but I’ll hold off for now and see what others have to say first.
I’m not particularly advocating there being a ‘centrist project’ — although happy to hear anyone’s arguments about why one might be a good idea. That’s just what Johansson called it, and to be fair I think some if not all of the particular issues he includes in it (esp in the democracy area) would benefit from a bipartisan approach, IF that could be achieved.
Certainly Johansson is very into this post-partisan stuff (I resisted getting into debating some of his claims in that area), but, by the same token, his ‘project’ could just as easily be implemented alongside an agenda of, say, massive income redistribution or massive tax cuts.
So I don’t think the C-word necessarily invalidates the proposed content of the agenda, and I’d be interested in your take on the four components he puts forward — as well as your own list, of course.
On the water bit – perhaps a surprising addition to such a short policy agenda. But water will become a bigger and bigger issue locally and globally. At home we’re seeing it around the Ecan scrap and what now seems to be a rush of water storage proposals throughout the country. Just heard one for the Wairarapa. Globally embedded water is one of the consumer issues du jour and concern about how much water is used in creating products (and an environment’s ability to meet that demand) will only become a bigger issue. In this NZ does have an international competitive advantage. But still surprised it’s here in this list…maybe Johansson wants a debate?
The book was finished at the beginning of 2009 I think, so certainly the current government’s positioning on water issues in Canterbury was well in the future, and Johansson’s push of water as a centrist issue may look a little ironic just as the moment. But, as you say, the issue will be there long after the current scrap is over.
Pete Townsend, CEO Canterbury Employers, has been saying water is the big issue for years now. Hell, in the last (and I mean last) regional council election 2021 lost councillors to the Save-Our-Water group (Greens).
Water does highlight the public/ private debate nicely here in the election-less South. One of the prevailing views that it is difficult to not see some merit in is that if water had been privatized more quickly, then the Ecan politicians would have been safe.
I don’t understand from your post what the Centrist Project is. It seems like a bunch of important policy areas without an underpinning set of ideas about how people are or should be that then lead to a policy response.
God, what the hell is post-partisanism? Where two or more people work through their common interests and agree to work together does not a party form? It looks like mumbo-jumbo cod duality of man rubbish best left to Stephen Segal and other martial arts masters of the cinema.
But, in the spirit of post-partisan equal emphasis on self-criticism to go with criticism, or a marker of passive aggressive behaviour as others might call it, I am open to be educated.
Oh, and do you think Jon has more profile than Therese?
If you are right about this book being finished at the beginning of 2009, I guess that is why Johansson could write with expectation of the current National government. But I should leave that subject well alone and focus on your four selected points David.
Strengthening Democracy. The input of new information technologies into democracy so far has been to offer another avenue of misinformation to the public, a new generation of Spin Doctors. As for referenda, not just because of the Section 59 referenda, there is a point where the democratically selected representatives have to make the decisions because the rest of us don’t have time to become informed enough. So I think it is right that Johansson focused on the electoral system and electoral finance. Indeed, I think the core of any reform has to start with electoral finance, as that is where direct abuse of democracy is most likely.
His idea of broaching the republican debate via an eminent persons group just leaves me cold. Another selected group of people to tell me from above what should happen? No thank you. And that is not just because there are a number of New Zealanders with Knighthoods I wouldn’t trust alone near the families silverware (okay, alone near my stereo. One day, my family may have silver.). The people, not by the people’s artificially chosen elders, should make the discissions on this matter.
The attention to water is odd, and I do agree with your reasoning of the motive of its inclusion. My question is, does Johansson move from discussing water in its raw form, to discussing it as a processed item (agricultural outputs)? Because then the question becomes what is the best use for water, and what rights do all New Zealanders have to water?
In tertiary education, I think the core problem is ‘How can we train people better for New Zealand, and how can we offer trained people a better future in New Zealand?”. How does transforming our universities into more specialised or elite institutions address that?
Finally, you are spot on with your criticism of Johansson’s preference for more open and less partisan politics Dave. As the ad once went “I’d loved to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, I’d love to buy the world a coke*…” but I don’t know how that would happen. Same with the subject of reduction of partisan politics.
*Only figuratively. Coke would need to improve its international employment and manufacturing practices, and I would need to become an eccentric billionaire.
1. Contra Johansson, I find it difficult to see water as a strategic asset. I can’t imagine any circumstance in which it would make sense to export water in bulk. Water’s value lies in what is produced with it; those commodities which use large amounts of water are themselves of relatively low value. Aotearoa-NZ is too small to be a commodity price maker in the long run. Fonterra recognises this; it is why Fonterra is expanding its production base into the USA, South America, and China — and probably other places.
Our endowment of water may provide a temporary tactical advantage, until other nations come to grips with managing their own water better, but that’s all. We do need a strategy for management of our water supply, but that does not make water “strategic” in the sense of conferring a lasting advantage or capability.
2. Sean has nailed the tertiary education policy problem. I’d like to add, though, that the challenge for the future is accommodating “lifelong learning”. Occupations and industries are mutating, disappearing and appearing with increasing speed. The lower (more junior) levels of tertiary ed. need to reduce costs and increase tempo to match the need for retraining at shorter and shorter intervals. The only possible way forward is automation of content delivery and learning assessment. If the government is to spend money on R&D, that’s where it should go.