Perhaps New Zealand is known for its balanced and centrist politics. However, we are not immune to political polarisation.
Across the globe, the detrimental effects of political polarisation are coming to light, but perhaps there are benefits for society and innovation.
In March 2023 Chris Hipkins said New Zealand isn’t isolated from the “greater degree of polarisation” spreading worldwide.
As the differences between supporters of different political parties continue to grow, so do the concerns.
Polarisation can lead to a political gridlock, as parties and their supporters become more focused on defeating the opposition than addressing the critical issues that matter.
Is this the direction New Zealand’s political sphere is heading in? In many senses, it is.
What is Affective Polarisation?
Affective polarisation is the tendency for people to feel positive about the political party they support while disliking and distrusting those they don’t.
The phenomenon goes beyond disagreements over policy or ideology but reflects deep-seated emotional biases that majorly impact social cohesion and democracy.
No longer are political discussions just about differences in opinion or approach. Instead, they become battled between perceived good and evil, with each side viewing the other as misguided and malicious.
This hinders constructive dialogue, widens social divisions, and undermines democratic societies’ trust in political processes. It fuels a cycle of mutual distrust and animosity.
Innovation thrives in an atmosphere of openness and cooperation. A polarised society, however, may prioritise ideological battles over constructive discussions.
Is It a Good Thing?
Sure, disagreements can lead to deeper explorations of issues, triggering a surge of new ideas and solutions. This push for innovation can be seen as a positive outcome of political polarisation.
When political polarisation exists, individuals are more likely to engage critically with information. They’re encouraged to research and form their opinions based on facts rather than just accepting a particular viewpoint.
This habit of critical thinking can spill over into business and tech, encouraging professionals to question assumptions and explore uncharted territories.
Perhaps the opposite could be said, though—polarisation muddies waters and keeps misinformation and disinformation in the news cycle. Discerning between real and fake news is a growing challenge.
New Zealand’s Not Immune
A handful of recent studies prove the polarisation escalation locally.
A 2020 study from the Journal of Research in Personality showed Labour and Green voters have gradually expressed greater disapproval of National over the years.
In January 2022, a Curia Research opinion poll showed that 72 per cent of Kiwis felt the country was more divided, while just 10 per cent believed it was less divided.
Another 2020 study of nine OECD countries confirmed intensifying affective polarisation levels, which are especially intense when unemployment and inequality are high.
America’s Impact
In his book ‘Fear’ about New Zealand’s hostile underworld of extremists, Byron Clark writes that “when America sneezes, the world catches a cold”, and in part, the United States’ cultural influence on New Zealand has deepened local polarisation levels.
One study from Brown University showed that over the last 40 years, polarisation has grown faster in the US than anywhere else and that affective polarisation has risen in New Zealand, but to a lesser extent.
Polarisation undercuts unity on foreign policy and harms a country’s international standing. According to a 2021 study in Public Opinion Quarterly, it contributes to democratic backsliding, reducing support for left-wing norms.
One YouGov survey found about sixty per cent of Democrats and seventy per cent of Republicans see the opposition as “a serious threat” to the US.
The Partisan Pandemic: COVID-19’s Role
Alternative media here is bolstered by nations like the US, but New Zealand cannot just blame America. Labelled the ‘partisan pandemic’ by some, coronavirus continues to be an undeniable polarisation pusher.
New Zealand united as a ‘team of five million’, and as the Wellcome Global Monitor by Gallup found, trust in scientists over this period increased more here and in Australia than anywhere else worldwide. But divisions soon grew.
Underneath the solidarity emerged intense conspiracy and misinformation, with 40 per cent of Asian Kiwis experiencing racism, per researchers from the University of Auckland.
Three years of protests against lockdowns, the United Nations, and vaccines denying the virus’ mere existence were similar to events overseas, but ultimately homegrown efforts.
The Posie Parker Incident
Chris Hipkins’ comments on polarisation followed British anti-trans activist Posie Parker’s visit here that culminated in an intense counter-protest.
He said he would not like to see New Zealand become as polarised as some other countries and that “there was a degree of exploiting fear in some of the public comments that had been made” regarding Parker’s visit.
But in the same interview on RNZ’s Morning Report, Hipkins also said that as a democratic nation, it’s important to be able to have and express disagreements from time to time.
When is it all too much, though? At what point are we no longer debating politically and instead arguing over whether someone deserves their basic human rights to be met?
When Political Debates Turn Personal
Differences in political ideals and goals indicate a healthy democracy, but a line must be drawn. Even the Democracy Fund organisation admits democracy is a work in progress, a complex, imperfect system.
Striking a balance between embracing disagreements inherent in a democratic society and preventing disunity and hate speech from spiralling out of control is absolutely crucial for the future of New Zealand.
The Human Rights Commission receives more complaints about public abuse today than ever before but calling for empathy as a means of bridging divides ought to be a slap in the face for those who are subject to views that question the value of their lives.
Searching for Solutions to Polarisation
So, have New Zealanders lost the ability to agree to disagree?
We are not immune to the increasing polarisation seen globally, but with proactive efforts from citizens, media, and political leaders, it’s possible to at least alleviate the deepening of societal divisions.
Increased media literacy, especially on online content, and critical thinking around misinformation and extremist ideologies cannot hurt.
One study from Duke University showed how varying levels of anonymity can lead to two people with the most opposing political views finding common ground.
It’s also important to remember that some people have incentives to stoke polarisation, which keeps social media sites buzzing, politicians supported, and organisations empowered.
New Zealand must acknowledge this and that polarisation is only growing so we can get back to having political discussions free of intolerance, hostility, and hate.