The electoral manifesto moment of 2026

Each election year reaches a certain point when the political parties start to make available some elements of their election manifesto, that list of proposals, promises, aims and aspirations that reflect not only what and who they are (or at least claim to be) but also what they state they would do if (only) they gained power.

The thing is, in an MMP environment the manifesto has dropped in deliverability from probable to possible; and in many cases to aspirational. That’s because in an MMP environment no single manifesto will be delivered. Such is the MMP framing and mindset that even when the 2020 Labour Government was elected as a single party government it found itself unable to deliver on it, not least because it was not actually a single party government manifesto in conception and aspiration so could never be one in delivery.

The manifesto, as Mary Ann Caws observes in Manifesto: a century of isms (2000), “makes an art of excess” (p.xx), being “a document of an ideology, crafted to convince and convert” (p.xvii). Central to the manifesto is what Caws terms “the manifesto moment” which is its positioning “between what has been done and what will be done, between the accomplished and the potential, in a radical and energizing division”(p.xxi), a moment of crisis expressing “what it wants to oppose, to leave, to defend, to change.”(p.xxiii)

If we reconsider our New Zealand political party manifestos in light of this it becomes clear why many of us find the experience of MMP and coalition government so disappointing, problematic or disingenuous. In a First Past the Post system (problematic as it may have been) the expectation was that what was on the election manifesto tin would match the contents…and when it did not there were serious questions raised and often a political kick-back response. At the very least the offending party had to explain why their manifesto promises and expectations were not being delivered and implemented. Under FPP the election manifesto could be taken seriously as intentional and deliverable.

But in a MMP environment we know from the outset that any manifesto put forward will not match the contents of the coalition government that comes to power. Rather than a single-tin return on promises and policies what we see in operation is a type of pick-n-mix horse-trading boil-up, boil-down, extract the floaters and scrape the bottom of the pan mess of mashed polices that no-one in their right mind, left-mind or even centrist mind would have voted for.

I’d suggest that MMP delivers what we can term a negative manifesto moment for each party, which is its positioning ‘between what has been done and what might or probably not be done, between the accomplished and the potential and the expected failure, in a cynical and disingenuous division’, a moment of confident resignation expressing ‘what it wants to oppose, to leave, to defend, to change...but only as far is negotiable and tradable and willing to be deleted toward the gaining of collective power’.

While this is far from ideal, that is in fact how MMP is meant to act, but only if coalition blocs are not actually pre-determined before the election, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Our current and probably future version of MMP with New Zealand characteristics is, as I have previously stated, really one of two big party blocs that are internally divided into a number of parties. In this scenario the manifesto is really the signal to other parties in that bloc of where their coalition negotiations start, not where they expect them to end. To be completely cynical we could suggest the real target audience of a manifesto is not the voter but the other parties in your bloc. It’s the manifesto of the Wellington sector.

This has proven to be the pre-election undoing of the Opportunity party, as the bloc they suggested and sold themselves to voters as being a possibility has rejected them. Rather than being possibility for two blocs they find themselves only being possibility for one. This also raises issues for any coalition government electoral seat voters who considered they might take the opportunity to widen the coalition by a new party vote.

Such a party-bloc scenario also means the manifestos of the smaller partners in such a coalition need to be closely examined as to what are their non-negotiables for power. The choice for the New Zealand voter is now actually for a pre-determined bloc rather than for one or two parties who might find themselves in new possible coalitions of government. For the current opposition bloc the question arises of not only whether Labour is truly open to Te Pāti Māori and/or Te Tai Tokerau Party being part of a possible coalition government but one of how many of their policies would be acceptable to the major party? Or does the rise of Opportunity negate any need to include these Māori parties in a possible coalition? So toward which parties is the Labour party manifesto really aimed at and more open to? And what does the blocking of Opportunity from the current coalition government mean for Labour?

Should we vote on the basis of a manifesto, or vote on a collection of manifestos and then hope something workable and achievable and live-withable arises from them? I’d suggest don’t just read the manifesto of the party or parties you are thinking of voting for but instead read the manifestos of all parties in your voter bloc and see if you can spot the non-negotiables for power within them. And then consider if you can vote for such a mash-up collection of core policies from all those bloc parties being delivered as probably the most distinct bloc-government possibility. The question is who gets to decide what comes from each manifesto tin and then decides what is made from the selection? As they say, too many chefs spoil the broth…but remember the pre-election manifesto menu is only indicative of what will be presented and delivered as hopefully palatable post-election… caveat emptor indeed…