Oct. 18 was No Kings Day, and a chant reverberated throughout America as 7 million protesters marched in 2,700 cities and towns all across the country—including San Luis Obispo: “Tell me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!”
After a two-week tour of New Zealand, here’s what one version of democracy looks like: This small island nation of fewer than 6 million “Kiwis” have built a flourishing model of democracy.
In addition to their unique geography and inspiring landscapes, New Zealand’s people are a fascinating conglomerate with a unique political culture—one that offers inspiration and maybe even a small candle of hope to our polarized nation.
New Zealand operates with a single-chamber national Parliament in their capital, Wellington, that is a unique product of their diverse population: It has been heralded with a world record in representation from the LGBTQ-plus community, and in 2022, female members of Parliament briefly outnumbered the men 60 to 59.
In 2023, however, Kiwis elected a right-wing coalition in a stinging rebuke of their once-popular Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern. The Labour Party had won a nearly unpredicted majority in 2020, but only three years later they took only 27 percent of the seats. They lost for a variety of reasons, including a stumbling response to the COVID pandemic, rising inflation, and a scorching disinformation campaign orchestrated by Moscow.
One-sixth of Kiwis identify with the indigenous Māori culture that first settled in New Zealand in the 13th century—half a millennium before the English arrived to colonize the country in the 19th century. In 2023, the proportion of Parliament members who identified as Māori rose, and now comprises 27 percent of the Parliament—10 points higher than their share of New Zealand’s overall population (17.4 percent).
Kiwis vote on a regular three-year election cycle, and what is unusual is their 30-year-old method of apportioning seats according to a formula they call “mixed member proportion” (MMP). Voters get to cast two ballots: The first for the individual they want to represent them in Parliament, and the second for one of 14 political parties. The party that wins the most votes will form the next government, based on the composition of the Parliament, which holds a mix of “constituency MPs” (member of Parliament) as well as “list MPs” who are drawn from lists of party leaders who are seated in order of their respective party lists, in proportion to that party’s share of the national vote.
When all the results are in, Kiwis usually know which individual will become their new prime minister: It’s the leader of the party with the largest representation in Parliament. With so many parties competing for their votes, however, it’s almost always a coalition government, hammered together through painstaking negotiations among party leaders.
The result is a Parliament that truly represents the will of the voters by the magic of building coalitions.
Kiwis are rightfully proud of their democracy. They defeated an effort to repeal the MMP system in a 2011 referendum. Contrast that with the hugely unpopular two-party system that evolved in the U.S.: A patchwork of precedent and political opportunism, hemorrhaging its integrity by its dependence on PAC campaign funds that almost guarantees government-by-oligarchy.
Next year’s election in New Zealand is expected to produce another pendulum swing, returning a progressive coalition to power with new vision supplied by energetic, left-leaning party leaders both within and outside of the Labour Party.
The people of New Zealand appear to be happy with the pluralism, the dynamism, and the overall direction of their national government. When the mood of the voters changes, the government changes with it.
And I cannot leave New Zealand without mentioning one other unique virtue of their politics: The home of their prime minister is called “Premier House,” a relatively modest 19th century dwelling in Wellington last renovated in 1990. It requires some serious attention to deferred maintenance—and yet their prime minister is only permitted to occupy it if they do not already reside in and represent Wellington!
Premiere House is a valued part of “Heritage New Zealand,” and the government has pledged significant money to restore it to its former elegance, but it would be unthinkable for a prime minister to order any part of it to be renovated or expanded—let alone demolished—without extensive consultation and public consensus.
Another contrast, then, with the U.S. where the White House has just suffered a devastating blow: A wrecking crew demolished the entire East Wing of this iconic building in complete disregard of the laws and regulations governing such work.
The No Kings march earlier this month has shown a way for the people to seize control of our democracy and reject a narcissistic, self-serving tyrant determined to reshape our institutions in his personal megalomaniacal image. As we look ahead to the 2024 midterm elections—now just one year away—we should look for inspiration to that small island nation lying 6,700ish miles away. ∆
John Ashbaugh wrote to New Times from New Zealand. Send a response to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Oct 30 – Nov 9 2025.
Years ago, a friend who had migrated from New Zealand offered an interest insight on the differences between the two countries. If he had stayed in New Zealand, he would be taken care of and have his needs provided for, but would never be able to really accomplish anything with his life. In the US, he could strive and become a success, not a ward. He became a successful contractor.
John D:
Keywords in your comment…”years ago…became successful contractor.” Finance was a whole different world then. Contracting was a whole different world then. If your friend was actually a “successful contractor,” he, like many American farmers to this day, likely hired subcontractors who used illegal aliens and drove down wages for native born American plumbers, electricians, framers, and roofers. Drive by your local job site of spec houses, take a REAL good look at who is doing the work. It most likely isn’t Americans. Congratulations, John, your friend dodged taxes and ruined the construction industry for actual Americans.
This is one of the many things your generation, like peacocks with their chests puffed out, refuses to look at. How exactly did your cohort, in general, obtain their wealth? They certainly didn’t earn it. They dodged taxes, used illegal labor, and were simply handed, like a trust fund, the richest country on earth by their parents who survived the Great Depression and won WWII. You had to seriously screw up, like my late father, to not come out on top by your age.
We see this, why don’t any of you? Now, what should have lasted GENERATIONS, is gone. You people voted for your people in office who deregulated banks, broke unions, used illegal aliens to circumvent paying living wages, lied on tax forms, and sent our factories overseas. We now sit on 40 trillion dollars in debt and since no one wants to cut defense spending or tax the rich, social programs are being closed and public employees laid off or, in the case of the US Dept of Education, simply eliminated. That’s the best your generation can do. And now, as your people sunset,you leave in your wake, a once beautiful country, completely ruined. Well done, sir. At least you and your fellow patroon got yours, right? RIGHT, JOHN? RIGHT? All your generation needs now are powdered wigs, diamond stick pins, silk breeches, top hats, monocles, and cravats.
If you’ll pardon me, John Donegan Esq., I need return to the swamp and continue gigging for frogs. Gonna check my snares too, might get lucky and have some rabbit stew tonight. Give my regards to the gals on the Champs-Élysées won’t you?
Hi Fly: The ladies at the Champs -Elysees send their regards, and ask that the rabbit stew not be under-cooked this time. And, was that in fact “rabbit”? Mrs. Smith’s cat “Mr. Boots” seems to be missing. Your frog legs, though, were perfect.
My contractor friend was a small time builder, who managed to support a family with his earnings. I have no idea what his hiring practices were, but his jobs seemed to involve a lot of swinging a hammer by him personally. I never saw him in a top hat, stick pin, monocle nor a powdered wig, attire which he would have disdained as “effete”.
John CD:
My late father was a carpenter par excellence and with whom I would go to various job sites with in southern California in the early 80s, right before he got sent to slammer for eight years for manufacturing meth. That era was the last gasp for American tradesmen. There would usually be a couple of guys from south of the border carrying wood around to carpenters and farmers like my father. Fast forward 40 years and the situation is reversed. Why? Illegal aliens having learned those trades drove the wages of skilled labor down to the point where people like my late father, with enough dignity, found it intolerable. And why should Americans tolerate it? Why should native born Americans, who can trace their lineage back generations here, go to work and find themselves having to compete with some non-english speaking illegal, who snuck over the border at night like a thief, working for half price? If a ham sandwich said they’d build the wall, close the border, and deport every single last one of them, why wouldn’t anyone vote for the party the ham sandwich belonged to? I sure did and did so so other Americans might enjoy the prosperity the average skilled tradesman could enjoy when not competing with or tripping over the 40 million illegals in this country driving down wages and driving up rent.
*my father was a carpenter and framer, not a farmer.
If you ask me, the reason the Democratic party could care less whether America is flooded with illegal aliens from all over the world is NOT for their votes, as illegal aliens they cannot vote. The reason is because they are beholden to corporate campaign contributions. Corporations want profit and as can be seen by all the illegals fleeing from ICE whether in agricultural fields or chicken processing plants, they love to hire them. The difference in the wages illegals earn and what true Americans deserve and expect working the same jobs, goes straight into their shareholder’s pockets and sent back to their state Senators or Congressional representatives to ensure their steady flow of illegal continues unabated. Meanwhile, the rest of us raised with running water and electricity, want more. We aren’t happy watching upward mobility disappear. We aren’t happy being called “racist” for wanting this giant scam ended so our wages can rise and we aren’t forced into paying 2/3 of our income in rent. The companies hiring illegals need to be prosecuted, when the Trump administration does that and corporations clean up their acts, that’s when I’ll be impressed. Doing so is a win-win situation. The government will see a rise in tax revenue and AMERICAN WORKERS might actually get a living wage back and enjoy the kind of prosperity your generation, Boomers, grew up with.
Hogwash, as usual. The vast majority of Democrats favor the repeal of Citizens United. I’ve never heard a Republican call for that.
Well, accompany it with a prohibition on unions making donations, or from engaging in political promotion, and I might be willing to talk about it.
Less than 10% of Americans belong to unions. Corporate contributions are substantially larger than union contributions. A quick google search will show that business interests have about a 16-to-1 overall advantage over organized labor in political donations. Maybe we reduce corporate donations to equal union activity. I would agree to that and am pretty sure most Dems would go for it. So, please show me a Republican in office who would go for it. I doubt you’ll find any.
Maybe fewer than 10% of Americans belong to unions, but they have disproportionate influence in the Democratic party, especially the teacher’s union, probably the nation’s most powerful union. They are usually hard left and dictate much of the Democratic agenda. And while the Democrats get a substantial share of corporate donations, union donations are almost all made to the Democrats.
I’m a Republican, I would love to see publicly financed elections. It’s a very conservative concept.