How Division Is Used by National, ACT and NZ First

The Methodology

By Dr Harpreet Singh | drhsinghnz.substack.com | FB: @DrHSinghNZ | BSky: @DrHSinghNZ | IG: @DrHSinghNZ

The pattern is becoming familiar: stoke outrage, create scapegoats, distract from economic hardship, attack inclusion, and present compromise as weakness.

We have seen this style of politics overseas, especially in the rise of American grievance politics, where culture-war battles were used to divide communities, distract from inequality, and protect the interests of the wealthy and politically connected.

Now similar tactics are appearing here in Aotearoa.

Instead of focusing on wages, housing, healthcare, education, poverty, and the cost of living, the public is pushed into endless “us vs them” arguments. Māori institutions, public servants, migrants, academics, and so-called “woke” ideas become convenient targets.

But division is not accidental. It is useful.

It keeps people angry at each other rather than asking who really benefits. It shifts attention away from wealth and power. It allows smaller, louder political forces to punch above their weight. And it helps concentrate influence in the hands of the ultra-wealthy, political donors, lobbyists, and those already closest to government.

New Zealand should not import this kind of politics.

We need a country that can disagree without being deliberately divided. We need politics that solves real problems, not politics that manufactures enemies.

Because when division wins, democracy weakens, and the powerful get stronger.