Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Reddit
Digg
Tumblr
Email
When I look at the data from New Zealand’s upcoming local body elections on October 11, the numbers tell a sobering story. Central Otago mayor Tamah Alley calls declining participation a “real concern” and a “threat to democracy”, and she’s right. About two-fifths of eligible electors voted in the previous election, following a trend that has been almost continuous since the 1989 local government reforms.
But here’s what the official statistics don’t capture: the growing economic barriers that are systematically excluding entire demographics from meaningful political participation.
From my years observing New Zealand’s democratic processes, I’ve witnessed firsthand how financial pressure shapes who can afford to engage in our democratic processes. The 2025 elections arrive against a backdrop of genuine economic hardship – a single person needs around NZ$4,300 per month just for rent, food and bills in Christchurch, while families of four need at least NZ$6,200 monthly to get by. In Auckland, median weekly rent has reached NZ$675, consuming massive chunks of household income.
These aren’t just housing statistics – they’re democracy statistics. When people are working multiple jobs to pay rent that consumes 40-50% of their income, attending evening council meetings becomes a luxury many can’t afford. When small business owners are clocking 60-hour weeks just to survive rising costs, six-month campaign seasons become impossible propositions.
The evidence is already visible in candidate numbers. Regional and Unitary Councils Aotearoa expressed concerns about the low number of candidates standing for the 2025 elections. This mirrors patterns from previous cycles where economic pressures filtered out potential candidates who couldn’t afford extended unpaid civic engagement.
My economics background tells me we’re seeing a classic market failure in democratic participation. The “price” of meaningful civic engagement – opportunity costs, time commitments, financial risks – has risen faster than many people’s ability to pay that price. The result is a systematically skewed participant pool.
Consider the typical council meeting schedule: weeknight sessions that can run until 10 pm, weekend workshops, and endless committee responsibilities that easily demand 20-30 hours weekly from elected representatives. For anyone supporting young families, running small businesses, or working multiple jobs, these time demands create insurmountable barriers.
Switzerland offers instructive comparisons here. Their local democratic systems have evolved specifically to address economic participation barriers. Many municipalities offer neighbourhood consultations involving children, youth, parents, elderly people, and even residents without Swiss citizenship. Despite Swiss voter turnout being just 48.4% in 2015, democracy gives people more satisfaction even if they don’t exercise their rights, suggesting that accessible participation mechanisms matter more than pure turnout numbers.
The Swiss understood something fundamental: democracy requires more than just the legal right to participate. It requires practical ability to participate. Their systems actively account for economic realities rather than pretending they don’t exist.
New Zealand’s response has moved in the opposite direction. Local Government NZ formed an electoral reform working group that will recommend in-person voting and having the Electoral Commission take over running local elections, but these administrative changes miss the deeper structural problems.
The real issue isn’t how we vote – it’s who can afford to participate in the first place. Our current system accidentally filters for older, wealthier, more established demographics who have the economic security for extensive civic engagement. The proportion of women elected to most examined areas of local government steadily increased from 2010 to 2019, but the 2022 elections showed decreased representation – suggesting that even hard-won diversity gains can reverse under economic pressure.
Looking ahead to these elections, I’m particularly interested in how 42 councils will hold local referendums on Māori wards. Will participation patterns reflect broader economic demographics, or will we see genuine community-wide engagement across income levels? My prediction: turnout will correlate strongly with household financial security.
The formation of several groups of independent fiscally conservative candidates, including Better Hamilton, Better Waipā, and Independent Together in Wellington, suggests voters are seeking alternatives. But these groups still draw primarily from demographics with time and resources for political organisation.
From my academic perspective, this represents a fundamental challenge to democratic theory. We assume democratic participation reflects the “will of the people,” but what happens when economic barriers systematically exclude large portions of that people? We’re not getting representative democracy – we’re getting plutocracy by default.
Practical solutions exist. Some councils could experiment with compensating participants for attending lengthy consultations, offering remote participation options for working parents, or scheduling key meetings outside traditional business hours. Weekend sessions, childcare provisions, and streamlined submission processes could dramatically expand participation.
The Swiss model of extensive local autonomy allows municipalities to innovate with participation mechanisms suited to their specific economic conditions. There are various types of formal and informal consultation in legislative and decision-making processes at federal, cantonal, and municipal levels, recognising that one-size-fits-all approaches don’t work.
But we also need honest conversations about what quality democracy costs. Swiss citizens accept higher taxation partly because they get meaningful input on spending decisions. New Zealanders often want both low rates and high participation – an economic impossibility.
The October elections will test whether we can maintain genuinely representative local democracy under current economic pressures. If participation remains concentrated among older, wealthier demographics while working families, young people, and small business owners remain effectively excluded, we’ll need to acknowledge that our democratic systems have become economically discriminatory by design.
Democracy isn’t free – it never has been. The question is whether we’ll redesign our systems to distribute participation costs fairly, or continue pretending that equal political rights automatically translate to equal political power when citizens face such unequal economic circumstances.
The health of our local democracy depends on recognising this economic reality and acting on it.
Steve Baron is a New Zealand-based political commentator and author. He holds a BA with a double major in Economics and Political Science from the University of Waikato and an Honours Degree in Political Science from Victoria University of Wellington. A former businessman in the advertising industry, he founded the political lobby group Better Democracy NZ. https://stevebaron.co.nz