spinofflive
Chlöe Swarbrick in 2016, photographed by Nicole Semitara Hunt.
Chlöe Swarbrick in 2016, photographed by Nicole Semitara Hunt.

PoliticsNovember 13, 2016

Chlöe Swarbrick explains herself

Chlöe Swarbrick in 2016, photographed by Nicole Semitara Hunt.
Chlöe Swarbrick in 2016, photographed by Nicole Semitara Hunt.

Chlöe Swarbrick’s entry into the Auckland mayoral race captured the imagination of tens of thousands of voters – including, but not limited to, scores of politically disillusioned millennials. Now she wants to channel that passion into a run for the Green Party at next year’s general election.

What is the right age to enter politics?

I’m 22 years old. It’s a relevant fact, because my age informs my life experience, perspective and prejudice. But I don’t think it’s my defining feature.

For some reason or another, it sounds almost arrogant to propose that, as a “young person”, I could think I have more to offer than my age.

I’m acutely aware that even by writing this, I will be providing ammunition to the next person typing out their interpretation of my youthful, narcissistic tendencies.

How dare I think I’m so important?

With fellow mayoral candidates at the Waatea debate in Manukau.
With fellow mayoral candidates at the Waatea debate in Manukau.

I don’t. I’m as scared to be on the public stage as any other person would be. Those Facebook comments about my appearance, my inferred capability, my supposed character, my family? I read them all. The tweets about my irrelevancy, my stupidity, my naivety? You’re probably right, and it cuts deep. The statements and questions about policy? In the context of all of the others, they’re honestly far and few between, but I try to reply to all of those.

I’m here because in July this year, for a smattering of interrelated reasons, I committed to a bid for the Auckland mayoralty. It was borne out of nothing more than the backing of a few friends, anger at the lack of critical issues being addressed, and dismay at the disconnect between the people of Tāmaki Makaurau and the policy that would regress or progress our city for the next three years. In the beginning, it was far from being about “winning”. We just wanted people to give a shit. Only slightly further down the track, half a dozen debates into hearing the same stump speeches later, we set our eyes on the potential of trying to take strong policy, that would actually work, into office.

I was told I should have run for Local Board, or Council. I was too young. Too earnest, too docile, too uneducated, too uninformed, too bossy, too disrespectful, too much of an upstart. I should have worked my way up.

How dare I take a stand on something I cared about, try to engage people so they cared too, and run for a public office I fit the legal requirements for? How dare I endanger our democracy by offering another option, being fair game for critique, putting myself up for the vote?

Frequently, it was my lack of “life experience” cited. “Life experience”, I found out, is code for age. Those using it weren’t actually terribly interested in my life, or my experience.

Swarbrick gif

Relative youth was a double edged sword. As a novelty, I received an initial platform in the media that I wouldn’t have otherwise. When people in public recognised me, the majority knew me by my age well before my name.

In a crowded field of 19 candidates (and the events of that notorious AUSA debate for the “others”), I can understand why, initially, nobody knew what to do with me. Arriving around eight months later onto the scene than others, I can understand why the media had pre-selected their go-to crop for debates and interviews.

But after two months of seeking invites from debate organisers, answering every question I could on social media, and holding my own meetings across Auckland, the tide began to shift a little. It started with an interview on Q&A – the first time I was granted real air time, questioned about wonderful and meaningful things like policy, and not placed in a glass cage of peculiarity to be prodded at and commented on from a distance.

Things started to snowball, real debate and dialogue emerged. We all got incredibly excited. Nobody knew what to expect.

Then I lost. I felt impossibly privileged to have received the trust and support of 29,098 people (or, the protest they made, or whatever other theories emerge in the comments), but at the same time, I felt like I’d let those people down. Some of my incredible supporters emerged to disagree with the use of terminology like “unsuccessful” or “losing candidate”, whilst some individuals sought to drive it home, reinforcing their predictions, they said, that I was a waste of space. I’m happy to own the fact that I failed. I’ve failed many times in my life, and I think that if we were culturally more comfortable with the idea that failure is the risk that accompanies trying your best, we’d probably be a lot better for it.

Graduating from university. Photo: Nahyeon Lee
Graduating from university. Photo: Nahyeon Lee

In the weeks that followed the election, the media asked me to comment on a few things. Without realising it, I’d somehow been given the unofficial role of spokesperson for Auckland’s under-35s. When I did realise it, I felt rather uneasy, and began to immediately preface all further requested comments with the fact that I couldn’t speak to the life experience of all young people, just in case.

It turned out a lot of people were really interested in what I was “going to do next,” which was odd to me, because I’d still been working full-time throughout the campaign (you know, to afford living in Auckland). I wanted to sleep, and process how what had began as a bit of a protest had somehow turned into the most meaningful experience of my life. I wanted to compute the reality that I’d spent the past few months talking to people who’d let me into the intimate details of their lives, and that in the midst of trying to engage people in their future, people had begun to place their faith in me.

I had lent my voice to try and change the conversation, and an unprecedented number of people had responded. Entering the field without any expectations, I had discovered a new responsibility. I didn’t know what or how to do whatever was supposed to come next.

A lot of people thought my bid for the mayoralty was all part of this big game plan, and many of them I’ll never be able to dissuade. The reality is it was a more of a clumsy storm of earnest naivety, good intentions, hard work, open dialogue and surprising results.

The new day job: At Olly, the Mt Eden cafe Swarbrick is opening with (left) partner Alex Bartley Catt and (right) Bryan Anderson

This week I announced I’ve joined the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. I’m working through the process to stand as one of their candidates in the next general election. Notably, there is no guarantee I will pass even the initial stages of this process, but if I do, I will then be placed in a pool on which all members will vote list ranking. Internal commitments to democracy (like this one) are among the many reasons I decided to join the Greens. The major reason was their commitment to sustainability in all things: our environment, obviously, but also our people, communities, health, housing, and economy.

I’ve always voted Green, and for sake of transparency, I admitted that to any who asked me on the campaign trail. But I’ve never belonged to a political party, and I don’t take pinning any stripes lightly. I’ve long valued my independence, and this is kissing goodbye to any potential future I otherwise would have sought in bipartisan journalism.

Strangely, despite not actually yet being a politician, some have dismissed me as a career politician after my decision. It’s possibly about time I paid heed to the advice of older and wiser people in my life and stopped reading the comments. But it’s because of those comments that I’m where I am now.

Everybody’s voice matters, and I’ll treat everybody with respect. I’m not special, and as I’ve committed to the public arena, you’re entitled to treat me as fair game. Before you start typing, please remember: I’m just another person, trying my best to leave this planet a better place than I found it.

 

Keep going!
Getty Images
Getty Images

PoliticsNovember 11, 2016

The Trump phenomenon proves that electoral politics has failed. Time to try something new

Getty Images
Getty Images

Government by lottery? Why not, says Nicholas Ross Smith – the lesson of Trump is that combating the rise of post-truth politics requires not better politicians, but systemic change.

The unbelievable happened: the United States of America elected Donald Trump to be its 45th president despite his many character flaws and obscene ideas. Much like the Brits deciding to vote for Brexit in June, the media and the academy did not see this coming, leaving many of us in a state of disbelief.

These two events, with more likely to follow, demonstrate that we are entering a new age of politics in the West, a post-truth age. Coined by the blogger David Roberts in 2010, post-truth politics denotes “a political culture in which politics (public opinion and media narratives) have become almost entirely disconnected from policy (the substance of legislation)”

The main catalyst for the emergence of post-truth politics has been the incursion of social media into the centre of our everyday lives. Originally, the internet was seen as a tool to liberate us, giving everyone access to information free from the hierarchies of everyday life. However, it has seemingly done the opposite, leading to the rise of misinformation and with it, the demise of expertise.

Social media is particularly key to the emergence of the post-truth age because thanks to the advanced algorithms at the heart of these platforms our lives online have gradually become echo chambers that echo our inherent biases back to us. The echo chamber effect means that our while our ideological convictions strengthen, our openness to critique and revision of these ideas is reduced.

This explains why so many of us have been shocked by Brexit and the election of Trump. We were told in both cases that neither outcome had any real chance of happening. The experts, the pollsters and the ordinary people we saw on our social media platforms all gave us an impression that these phenomena were fringe movements which would be soundly beaten by the masses.

A silver lining of Brexit and Trump is that our echo chambers are collectively shattering. Realising that we have become detached from reality is an important step to correcting the ills of post-truth politics.

The first lesson is that conventional campaign strategies do not succeed in a post-truth world. The Trump and Brexit campaigns found fertile ground because they embraced the idea of non-linear campaigning. In a nutshell, a non-linear campaign aims to make its movement undefinable through a never-ending shapeshifting of contradictory statements and actions. The idea is that if something is undefinable, then it is also uncriticisable.

This non-linear idea was created in Russia, the brainchild of one of Vladimir Putin’s more flamboyant advisers, Vladislav Surkov. Putin has used this non-linear approach for some time domestically and also used it in his intervention in Ukraine. The Ukraine example shows how the Kremlin has used misinformation to try and achieve their goal of destabilising the country, a strategy which has had some success.

While many are pointing the finger at Putin for directly interfering in the US elections, his greatest influence, in my mind, has been as an inspiration for Trump’s campaign. While few people are prepared to give Trump any credit, with many chastising him as a buffoon, Trump has played this non-linear role to perfection. Trump has continually contradicted himself while ignoring refutations, all of which created a bewildering and undefinable movement.

So how do we combat the rise of post-truth politics? In the aftermath of Trump, a lot of people bemoan that Bernie Sanders’ progressive movement was scuppered by the DNC, particularly as it seemingly had much greater grassroots support than Clinton. However the solution lies not in movements or politicians, no matter how admirable or engaging, but in systemic change.

An enduring problem is that our democracies are not really democracies. They are oligarchies masquerading as democracies. Any system which has elections as the centrepiece of its popular participation is inherently flawed and easily corruptible. The Classical Athenians knew this, which is why they preferred lotteries to elections.

Our inept democracies have produced a kind of “rational ignorance” amongst the masses. People have come to realise that they cannot effect change in our democracies and have gradually (rationally) disengaged from politics. This enveloping rational ignorance also helps explain why post-truth politics has found fertile ground in our systems, as people no longer have the knowledge or the desire to discern fact from fiction.

Because rational ignorance is a natural product of our flawed democratic systems, counteracting it has to start with trying to make our systems more democratic. Minimising our reliance on elections – which carry with them a cacophony of campaign-focussed politics – while bringing citizen deliberation back to the fore is a good starting point.

If ordinary citizens start believing they can influence decision-making on a regular basis, not just by voting every few years, then the rational ignorance which has taken hold will start to dissipate. To do this however, we need to break through the pervasive elitism which casts ordinary people as being too stupid to have any productive role in politics. This is an insidious view of the masses which has aided the rise of oligarchies all over the West.

We do not lack ideas about how a more deliberative system which minimises the influence of elections (and oligarchs) could work. For instance, University of Pennsylvania Professor, Alex Guerrero, has designed a system specifically for the United States called a lottocracy. In a lottocracy, not only would the presidential election be scrapped, the United States Congress, two bodies which broadly look at all issues, would be replaced by 20 to 25 single issue committees of up to 300 people all randomly chosen by lottery.

In a lottocracy, a president (or prime minister) would still exist, but they would be selected by a committee and mainly fulfil ceremonial roles as their executive powers would be almost completely stripped. Such a system seems radical because we have come to see democracy as solely being about elections and not about the direct involvement of the citizenry. Changing this perception is an important precursor to pursuing any kind of deliberative democratic solution.

In an age where post-truth politics is becoming more and more influential and our democracies more and more inept, a whole new way of thinking is required. As philosopher Alex Guerrero puts it, “we don’t just need to change who the captain is; we need a new way to travel.” Finding ways to bring the “demos” back into democracy is a necessary starting point.

Geoffrey Palmer: The politics of America have changed forever. The planet has much to fear

Group Think: Gareth Morgan, Neil Finn, David Seymour, Lucy Lawless and more on the U.S. election

Jim Bolger: ‘Education is the only way to reduce the fear’

Ryan Greenway-McGrevy: America just elected Donald Maynard Keynes. Brace yourselves

Politics