Democratic Backsliding; Is New Zealand at Risk?
BY CAITLIN LEES
Introduction
Democracy, despite being the most popular system of government in the world, appears to be increasingly under threat. Around the world, democratic institutions are being eroded in favour of more autocratic means of government.
This article will define and explain democratic backsliding, illustrate how it is occurring overseas and in New Zealand, and outline why it is important to be aware of the potential dangers of a receding democracy.
Democracy and democratic backsliding
Democracy is, at its core, a system of government in which political power is vested in the people, who elect representatives to act on their behalf. Democratic backsliding is a process by which a democratic political system is gradually subject to regime change through declining strength in the core institutions and values underpinning it. The result of democratic backsliding is typically a system of government that is more autocratic (one person or a small group holding absolute power) or authoritarian (a suppressive regime in which individuals are subject to the oppressive power of an individual or a small group).
Democratic Backsliding across the world
Democratic backsliding is a global phenomenon, with notable recent examples including Brazil, India, and Poland. This article will focus on democratic backsliding in the context of the United States (US), as the US’s position as a global superpower means that the ramifications of its politics profoundly impact the rest of the world. Additionally, democratic backsliding in the US can materially undermine the international order, impacting human rights protections, global stability, and multilateral cooperation.
At the centre of current discussions about democratic backsliding in the United States is the concept of executive aggrandisement. This term refers to when a political leader extends their power beyond the scope of the checks and balances conferred upon them by the legislature or judiciary. It can also be described as the centralisation of power in the executive branch. An analysis of the Trump administration illustrates several ways in which executive aggrandisement has occurred.
Firstly, the administration has sought to grow the executive branch’s power to dominate over other branches of government, most notably the judiciary. This undermining of the judiciary can be evidenced by Trump calling judges that ruled against him and his administration, “left-wing activists”, as well as his administration calling for the impeachment of judges, filing judicial misconduct complaints, and defying court orders.
Another way executive aggrandisement can be exemplified in the US is through the administration’s attacks on societal opposition to executive power. Executive orders have been issued to target law firms that file lawsuits opposed by Trump, causing firms to scale back on work and initiatives that might conflict with the administration. Furthermore, attacks have been launched on journalistic freedom and the press through cuts in public funding and lawsuits.
Executive aggrandisement poses a significant threat to democracy. Democracy is intended to prevent a leader from holding supreme power over a state. When an overreach occurs, leaders can become more autocratic, challenging the underpinnings of democratic institutions. In an autocracy, leaders are less accountable to the public, leaving them free to serve their own self-interest instead of respecting that of the general population.
The executive’s disregard for rules-based order in the US has impacted the liberal international order, damaging multilateral institutions and international law. An example of this can be seen through the administration's attack on the United Nations (UN), which has involved the withdrawal of US funding and political leadership from the UN system, opening up funding gaps and impacting humanitarian aid. International law is a crucial tool in aiding the vulnerable and facilitating cooperation between states; without it, the peace and security of the global community is potentially under threat.
Democratic Backsliding in New Zealand
Whilst democratic backsliding does not overtly appear to be occurring in New Zealand, that does not mean we should be complacent. There are several areas in New Zealand where democracy has the potential to be eroded. This article will focus on three: the shortcomings of the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system; infrastructure and development project fast-tracking; and the increased use of urgency in passing legislation.
A. Shortcomings of MMP
MMP is the system of voting used in New Zealand to choose who represents the public in Parliament. Under MMP, a person has two votes – one for a party and one for an electorate. The party vote decides the number of seats a party gets in Parliament. Winning an electorate also wins a candidate a seat. Typically, a party will not win enough seats to form a government by itself and will need to come to an agreement with other parties to form a government.
MMP allows for the representation of numerous viewpoints and encourages diversity of thought and individuals within Parliament. In this respect, it can be seen to uphold democratic values. However, the system is not without its flaws. Under the MMP system, small parties can have significant influence when it comes time for forming coalitions, perhaps more than they ought to be democratically afforded when considering the lower percentage of the vote they have attracted. A recent example of a small coalition party forcing through an unpopular bill can be seen in Act Party leader David Seymour's Regulatory Standard Bill, which despite largely lacking democratic mandate, has passed its first reading and is currently before Parliament.
So, whilst the MMP system can be seen as a safeguard against democratic backsliding, it can also lead to power being overly vested in smaller parties, potentially undermining democratic ideals.
B. Fast tracking.
The Fast-Track Approvals Act was introduced in 2024, allowing the government to fast-track consent for development projects. Under this Act, projects are sent to expert panels, selected by the government, to be considered for approval. This means that pre-existing checks and balances, such as the need for public consultation and adherence to the Resource Management Act, can now be circumvented. This is a clear example of power being concentrated within the executive branch and limits being placed on public input. Thus, democracy is being impeded by the fast-tracking process.
C. Increasing use of urgency
Urgency is a process by which certain parliamentary procedures can be set aside to allow a government to pass laws faster. Urgency is an important tool frequently used by governments for several valid reasons; however, the current National government appears to be using it with abnormal frequency.
Regarding the impact on democracy, urgency allows governments to skip select committee hearings. Such hearings allow for public feedback on bills and act as an important check on governmental power. One example of a Bill passed under urgency is the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, which had a submissions period of only four working days, a period of time so short that the Environmental Defence Society chose not to submit on it at all.
This limitation of public input and erosion of an important check on the power of the executive are both points of concern when considering the hallmarks of democratic backsliding.
Why we should care
Democracy is vital for promoting equality, protecting people, and holding leaders accountable to the will of the public. In a world where democracy is increasingly under threat, people must be aware of the warning signs of democratic backsliding in order to uphold our freedoms and allow for power to be shared by the people. History has shown us that it is easy to become complacent and that authoritarian regimes are not just a thing of dystopian fiction.
Conclusion
Democratic backsliding is a current global issue affecting countries worldwide, including historically democratic countries like the United States. Whilst New Zealand might appear to be a democratic stronghold, examples of democratic backsliding can be found. It is important that we hold governments accountable in times of executive overreach to ensure that power remains vested in serving the public interest.
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.