NZ’s political ‘centre’ is an electoral strategy, not a set of beliefs
- Written by: Weekend Times
Most of us use an imaginary two-dimensional spectrum to chart the positions of political parties, generally based on the fundamental issue of the relationship between the state
and private enterprise.
Parties of the left tip towards a greater role for government, while those on the right favour free markets and lower taxes.
The centre – that fabled land where political kingmakers and queenmakers roam – captures the moderate edges of both, at least in theory.
But what that means in practice can be unclear. “Centrism” is often defined as the non-ideological position, or as the pragmatic, moderate approach to politics – a bit of this and a bit of that.
Either way, the centre is always proposed as an alternative to the more ideologically recognisable positions taken up on the right and left – as if it is the Goldilocks part of the spectrum where the policy is just right.
In short, centrism is an ambiguous term which merits closer attention than it usually gets.
Ideology and ‘common sense’
Politicians who characterise themselves or their parties as centrist often describe themselves as being non-ideological.
In the early 2000s, former United Future leader Peter Dunne was fond of claiming he was the voice of “common sense”, the suggestion being that whatever his view on a given policy issue, it was the sensible one to hold. Ideology, from this view, is the enemy of sensible politics.
But what is value-free common sense to one person may well be politically loaded to another.
The rhetoric of common sense is usually deployed to throw the political equivalent of an invisibility cloak over a preference for a particular way of doing things that suits some interests but not others. It is how political judgements get to masquerade as “necessities”.
The tendency to speak of the centre as if it is non-political stems, too, from a misunderstanding (or deliberate misuse) of the word “ideology”. These days, taking an explicit ideological stance is often conflated with political zealotry.
It is certainly possible to be ideologically doctrinaire. But the root term simply refers to a political worldview containing three things: an analysis of the existing state of social and economic affairs, a sense of a better way of doing things, and a political strategy for getting from one to the other.
By this definition, all parties have ideological positions, self-proclaimed centrist ones no less than those on the left and right.
Dunne’s party, in its various iterations, was socially and fiscally conservative. NZ First, another sometime self-described centrist party, wants to statutorily define what it means to be a man or a woman. The Opportunity Party has clear positions on land taxes and guaranteed minimum incomes.
Each of these examples reflects an ideologically grounded view of the way things are and should be. It is not possible to do politics without being political: on the ocean of ideas, there are no doldrums where the politics goes quiet.
The centre does ideology as much as the left and right. As it should, for without an ideology – or, put another way, without political principles – a party could stand for all things or none.
Moderation and pragmatism
Centrist politicians also tend to describe themselves as policy moderates. Moderation in politics may be preferable to immoderation, but what does it mean?
What, for instance, is a moderate position on climate change? A little more heat but not too much? Moderation is a disposition, not a policy position, and centrists do not have a monopoly over it.
Centrism is also often coupled with pragmatism, which is really just another way of saying “we’re keeping our options open”. But that has to do with tactics, not policy.
For instance, the Opportunity Party’s position on post-election coalition negotiations – that it will speak with the largest party after the election (standard practice in the rest of the proportional representation world) – signals the first step the party will take if it holds the balance of power.
It doesn’t speak to its position on “who gets what, when and how”, as the political scientist Harold Lasswell described politics. Moderation and pragmatism are about political behaviour, not political substance.
There is nothing wrong with this. In politics, both process and substance are necessary. But we should be clear about what we are talking about.
When centrist politicians speak about being non-ideological they are often engaging in a rhetorical strategy known as “thirding”. As one political observer put it, this means “a huge array of ideological positions” can be represented as offering a new way between the old left and right.
But an imaginary line should not be confused with reality. The claim that it is possible to straddle – or rise above – contrasting positions on what counts as a better world and how to get there will always fall back to earth.
Not because people are ideologically fixed. Not because parties of the left and right are irremediably doctrinaire. And not because ideology does not matter. But precisely because it does matter.
In politics, it is impossible to avoid making choices that have material consequences for people’s lives. Saying you are a centrist may tell voters how you will behave, but it does not tell them what you stand for.
Richard Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
