The Polar Blast || On 7 November, New Zealanders will once again be invited to participate in what is routinely described as the most important exercise of their democratic rights, with political parties insisting that the country’s future depends upon which collection of politicians is given the authority to govern for the next three years. For months we have been subjected to the familiar spectacle of competing promises, carefully managed appearances, opinion polls and accusations of incompetence, while political commentators attempt to manufacture excitement around the question of who will occupy the offices of government. We are assured that the election represents an opportunity to determine the direction of the country, although the choices presented to us remain remarkably narrow when considered against the enormous possibilities of human social organisation.
For anarchists, the election raises a rather different question from the one dominating the political conversation, because our concern has never been principally with deciding who should exercise power over society, but with challenging the assumption that society requires a separate political authority to exercise that power in the first place. It is from this understanding that our refusal to participate in parliamentary elections emerges, a refusal grounded in a conception of freedom that reaches considerably further than the occasional opportunity to select those who will govern us.
Abstention has long been misunderstood, sometimes deliberately, as an expression of political indifference, as though anyone who declines to vote must be uninterested in the conditions under which they live or incapable of understanding the consequences of political decisions. Yet there is an important distinction between those who withdraw from politics because they believe nothing can be changed and those who reject parliamentary participation because they believe meaningful change requires a fundamentally different relationship with power.
Anarchist abstention belongs to the latter tradition, although we should acknowledge that declining to vote, by itself, accomplishes very little. There is nothing inherently revolutionary about remaining at home on election day, and the person who refuses to vote before returning to a life of passive acceptance has done nothing to challenge the arrangements they claim to oppose. The significance of abstention lies in the political understanding accompanying it and, more importantly, in the forms of activity through which that understanding finds expression. Our refusal is therefore concerned with where we locate the possibility of social transformation, whether in the institutions that administer the existing order or in the collective capacity of ordinary people to organise their lives without submitting themselves to political masters.
The central difficulty with parliamentary politics is that it presents government as the principal instrument through which society can be changed while leaving largely untouched the economic relationships that determine how society functions. In Aotearoa, as throughout the capitalist world, the overwhelming majority of people depend upon selling their labour to survive, while the resources necessary for producing and distributing the things we need remain subject to ownership arrangements that allow a comparatively small class to control economic life.
Governments may regulate these arrangements, sometimes introducing important protections against their more destructive consequences, but they operate within an economy in which investment decisions, employment opportunities and the availability of essential goods remain heavily dependent upon profitability. The landlord’s ability to demand rent, the employer’s authority over the workplace and the investor’s power to withdraw capital are treated as ordinary features of economic existence rather than political relationships requiring democratic justification. Elections consequently invite us to debate how these relationships should be managed, with remarkably little consideration given to whether they should exist at all. The political argument becomes concerned with the distribution of the wealth produced under capitalism, while the ownership of that wealth and the power associated with its production remain largely outside the discussion.
The 2026 election illustrates this limitation particularly well, although the differences between the parties should be recognised rather than dismissed through the lazy assertion that they are all identical. National and its coalition partners have defended an economic programme emphasising fiscal restraint, business confidence and restrictions on public expenditure, while Labour is campaigning on improved public services, employment protections and measures intended to reduce the pressures facing households. The Greens offer more extensive proposals involving wealth redistribution, public housing and environmental protection, while Te Pāti Māori advances demands concerning tino rangatiratanga and the continuing consequences of colonisation. These differences are real, and the effects of particular policies upon people’s lives can be substantial, especially for those whose circumstances leave them vulnerable to decisions made in Wellington.
Nevertheless, the programmes offered by the principal parliamentary parties remain situated within a society organised around private property, wage labour and the authority of the state. Their disagreements concern the extent to which these arrangements should be regulated, financed or reformed, while the possibility of replacing them with common ownership and collective self-management remains beyond the accepted boundaries of electoral debate. Even the more radical parliamentary proposals ultimately depend upon gaining control of institutions whose authority anarchists regard as part of the problem.
New Zealand’s political history provides considerable reason for questioning the belief that parliamentary representation offers a reliable path towards working-class emancipation. The Labour Party, established through the organised labour movement and once associated with the ambition of fundamentally transforming society, became one of the principal architects of the neoliberal restructuring that reshaped New Zealand during the 1980s. Under the Fourth Labour Government, financial markets were deregulated, public enterprises were corporatised and state assets were privatised, with consequences that devastated communities dependent upon industries previously organised around public employment.
These changes were subsequently extended by National governments, demonstrating how policies introduced by one party could become the foundations upon which its supposed opponents constructed their own programmes. The political spectrum itself shifted as ideas once associated with the economic right became accepted assumptions across much of parliamentary politics, leaving the traditional distinction between Left and Right increasingly inadequate for describing the interests represented by government. The historical irony is difficult to ignore: a party founded through working-class organisation became responsible for measures that substantially weakened the economic security of the very people whose interests it originally claimed to defend.
This experience should encourage us to examine the relationship between political power and economic power rather than placing our confidence in the personal convictions of individual politicians. There have undoubtedly been parliamentarians who sincerely intended to improve the conditions of ordinary people, just as there have been governments whose reforms produced genuine improvements in health, education, housing and employment. Anarchists have no reason to deny these achievements, although we should be equally interested in the pressures that made them possible and the circumstances under which they were subsequently weakened or reversed.
Many of the protections enjoyed by workers emerged from prolonged industrial struggle, collective organisation and the refusal of employers to meet demands voluntarily, with legislation frequently arriving after considerable pressure had already been exerted outside Parliament. The history of social reform is therefore much less a story of benevolent governments granting rights than of people organising to make the continuation of existing practices increasingly difficult. Parliamentary politics tends to reverse this relationship in popular memory, encouraging gratitude towards the politicians who eventually enacted reforms while obscuring the collective struggles through which those reforms became politically necessary.
Whenever anarchist abstention is discussed, however, the objection most frequently raised concerns the danger of allowing the political right to win, and in the present election this argument carries an understandable emotional force. There are people whose access to essential services, economic security or protection from discrimination may be affected by the outcome, and it would be dishonest to pretend that a National-led government and a Labour-led government would necessarily produce the same consequences. The question deserves to be treated seriously because political principles detached from the actual experiences of vulnerable people can easily become another form of indifference.
Yet, accepting that electoral outcomes have consequences does not establish that participation in elections represents the most effective means of transforming society, nor does it follow that those who abstain are responsible for the actions of whichever government eventually takes office. The argument that we must perpetually support a supposedly lesser evil risks reducing political life to an endless defensive exercise in which the limits of acceptable change are determined by whatever alternative appears most threatening. Each election is presented as an emergency requiring the temporary suspension of more ambitious political aspirations, although the emergency never seems to end and the promised opportunity for fundamental change is repeatedly postponed until some more favourable moment.
Those who insist that abstention helps the right are making an argument about electoral arithmetic that cannot simply be brushed aside, although they frequently turn it into a moral accusation rather than confronting the political assumptions involved. A person who chooses to vote for Labour or the Greens because they believe the immediate consequences will be less harmful is making an understandable judgement about the circumstances confronting them, and anarchists gain little by condemning such decisions as evidence of insufficient revolutionary commitment. Equally, the decision to abstain should be understood as a legitimate political judgement rather than treated as a failure to fulfil some obligation imposed by the electoral system.
There is a deeper problem when the responsibility for preventing reactionary governments is placed primarily upon individual voters, because this transfers attention away from the social conditions that allow reactionary politics to develop and the political institutions through which it gains authority. The influence of the far right will not disappear because a different government occupies the Treasury benches, and its appeal cannot be defeated permanently through electoral calculation while economic insecurity, alienation and resentment continue to provide fertile ground for authoritarian explanations of social problems.
The argument for abstention becomes clearer when we consider how little influence ordinary people exercise over the decisions that shape their daily existence, even in a society generally regarded as democratic. Workers spend much of their waking lives in organisations where decisions about their activities are made by employers, while tenants live in homes over which landlords retain extensive economic power, and communities frequently discover that decisions affecting their surroundings have already been shaped by commercial interests long before public consultation begins. These are relationships of authority experienced directly and repeatedly, yet they are rarely considered when discussions of democracy are confined to the organisation of Parliament.
A person may enjoy the formal right to select a representative while possessing remarkably little influence over the workplace in which they spend forty hours each week, and the contradiction is seldom regarded as a fundamental defect in the democratic arrangements under which we live. Anarcho-communism begins from the conviction that democracy, understood as meaningful collective control over the conditions of our existence, cannot remain confined to a political sphere separated from economic life. If people are capable of determining who should govern the country, there is no convincing reason why they should be considered incapable of directly organising the workplaces, services and communities upon which that country depends.
In Aotearoa, any serious anarchist criticism of parliamentary authority must also confront the colonial foundations of the New Zealand state. The authority exercised by Parliament did not emerge from some universal agreement among the people inhabiting these islands, but developed through a process of colonisation in which Māori sovereignty was challenged, whenua was confiscated and British institutions were imposed upon societies possessing their own forms of political organisation and authority. The continuing struggle over Te Tiriti o Waitangi makes the limits of parliamentary supremacy particularly apparent, because the Crown’s claim to ultimate legislative authority remains in tension with the rangatiratanga guaranteed in the Māori text.
The controversy surrounding ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, defeated in April 2025 following extraordinary public opposition, demonstrated both the willingness of politicians to revisit the foundations of Māori rights and the capacity of people to organise resistance beyond the routines of electoral politics. The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti brought tens of thousands onto the streets, establishing a form of political participation whose significance cannot be reduced to the parliamentary vote that eventually defeated the legislation. Anarchists should recognise that Māori struggles for tino rangatiratanga arise from their own histories and political traditions, rather than attempting to absorb them into a European ideological framework, while understanding that resistance to colonial authority is inseparable from any meaningful struggle against domination in Aotearoa.
The relationship between elections and political legitimacy deserves particular attention because parliamentary democracy encourages the belief that participation constitutes a form of consent to the authority subsequently exercised by government. We are told that the people have spoken, although what they have actually done is distribute parliamentary seats among parties operating within a predetermined constitutional arrangement. The election does not ask whether we accept the authority of Parliament, whether private ownership should determine access to the resources upon which life depends, or whether economic decisions should remain subject to the demands of capital accumulation.
Instead, these arrangements are treated as settled matters, while voters are invited to express preferences concerning the politicians responsible for administering them. Even a decisive electoral victory cannot reasonably be interpreted as approval of every institution through which the state exercises power, yet the language of democratic mandate regularly encourages precisely this confusion. Once the votes have been counted, governments claim authority to make decisions affecting millions of people, including those who opposed them and those who declined to participate, while the public is expected to regard the resulting administration as the legitimate expression of its collective will.
We should nevertheless avoid the equally misleading claim that declining turnout automatically undermines the legitimacy of government or demonstrates growing support for anarchist ideas. The Electoral Commission recorded turnout among enrolled voters of 78.2 per cent in 2023, compared with 82.2 per cent in 2020, but these figures reveal nothing about the political beliefs of those who stayed away. People abstain for many reasons, including disillusionment, practical difficulties, alienation and simple lack of interest, and there is no justification for treating every non-voter as an unconscious revolutionary. Nor does an election become politically ineffective merely because a substantial minority refuses to participate, since the institutions of government continue to operate regardless of how many people exercise their franchise.
Anarchist abstention therefore cannot rest upon the comforting assumption that withholding a vote somehow deprives politicians of the ability to govern. Its value depends upon whether refusal forms part of an organised challenge to the existing political order, accompanied by the development of forms of cooperation capable of reducing our dependence upon those who claim authority over us. Without that practical dimension, abstention risks becoming the passive withdrawal that its critics imagine it to be.
This is where the anarchist position necessarily moves beyond the election itself, because the question confronting us concerns what people can accomplish through their own organisations rather than what politicians might promise to accomplish on their behalf. Workers organising collectively can challenge the authority of employers through industrial action and workplace solidarity, while tenants acting together can resist exploitative conditions that would be difficult to confront individually. Communities can establish networks of mutual aid that provide practical assistance without reproducing the humiliating distinctions between deserving and undeserving recipients that characterise so much official welfare administration.
Such activities may begin modestly, addressing immediate difficulties rather than attempting to transform society in a single dramatic confrontation, but they contain the possibility of developing relationships based upon cooperation instead of dependence upon political representatives. Their importance lies partly in the material improvements they can achieve and partly in the experience of collective agency they provide, through which people discover capacities that a lifetime of hierarchical employment and representative politics has encouraged them to underestimate. Anarchism becomes meaningful when it ceases to be an opinion about government and begins to influence how we organise relationships with one another.
There is, of course, an obvious difficulty in suggesting that local organisation provides an alternative to institutions responsible for coordinating the activities of millions of people, and anarchists should resist the temptation to respond with romantic descriptions of small communities supposedly capable of meeting all their needs independently. A modern society depends upon complex systems of production and distribution, including hospitals, electricity networks, transport infrastructure and the movement of food across considerable distances, none of which can be sustained through isolated neighbourhood initiatives.
Anarcho-communism does not require the abandonment of large-scale organisation, however, because coordination and authority are different things, and the existence of complicated collective tasks does not establish that their administration must be placed in the hands of a political class. Federations of workplaces and communities, organised through assemblies and delegates subject to recall, offer a means through which decisions can be coordinated while remaining accountable to those affected by them. Such arrangements would undoubtedly encounter difficulties involving disagreement, competing needs and the distribution of limited resources, but these are problems that every society must confront, including the parliamentary system whose failures are so routinely excused as unavoidable features of political life. The anarchist proposal is that those difficulties should be addressed through institutions created and controlled by the people themselves.
The difference between these approaches concerns the direction in which political power is expected to travel. Parliamentary socialism has generally imagined that control of the state could provide the means through which society would eventually be transformed, with authority exercised from above supposedly preparing the conditions for its own disappearance at some indefinite future point. Anarchists have consistently questioned this assumption, recognising that institutions organised around command tend to reproduce the relationships of command upon which their existence depends.
The experience of political parties entering government offers considerable evidence of the pressures that encourage accommodation with existing economic arrangements, even when those parties originally possessed more radical ambitions. Electoral success requires maintaining public confidence, protecting economic stability and negotiating with interests possessing considerable power over investment and employment, while the practical administration of government increasingly absorbs the energies of those who once claimed to seek fundamental change. The resulting compromises are often defended as unavoidable necessities, although their cumulative effect can be to transform the political organisations themselves until preserving their access to government becomes indistinguishable from their original purpose.
It is important, however, that anarchists do not confuse fidelity to our principles with indifference towards the immediate suffering of others. If legislation improves the wages of care workers, expands access to healthcare or offers greater protection against discrimination, those improvements matter regardless of which government introduces them. We should support people struggling to defend such gains without imagining that their existence settles the larger question of how society ought to be organised.
Likewise, the refusal to vote should never become a badge of moral superiority through which we dismiss the concerns of people whose lives may be materially worsened by a particular electoral outcome. The strength of anarchism lies in its capacity to recognise the circumstances under which people are forced to live while insisting that those circumstances need not define the limits of what is possible. We can oppose reactionary policies, organise against the destruction of public services and stand alongside those threatened by authoritarian government without accepting that our political responsibility begins and ends with supporting an alternative collection of parliamentarians.
The approaching election will produce another government, and whichever parties eventually assemble the parliamentary numbers necessary to take office will present their victory as an endorsement of the programme they intend to pursue. Some people will celebrate while others will experience disappointment, and the attention of political commentators will gradually turn towards the next contest as the familiar machinery of government resumes its work.
For anarchists, however, the essential questions will remain unchanged, because the authority of employers, the privileges attached to property ownership and the subordination of ordinary people to political institutions will not disappear through the rearrangement of parliamentary seats. Our abstention is an expression of refusal to accept these arrangements as the natural boundaries of political possibility, although that refusal acquires substance only through what we undertake together beyond the ballot box.
The task is to build the relationships and organisations through which people can exercise increasing control over their own lives, developing the confidence to make decisions collectively and the capacity to provide for one another without dependence upon either the market or the state. We decline the invitation to choose our rulers because we reject the proposition that rulers are necessary, and because the freedom we seek cannot be delivered by those whose authority depends upon our continued willingness to be governed.
Discover more from The Battler
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
