The US Supreme Court’s recent ruling to throw out Roe v Wade is an issue of relevance to political leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The decision was met with enthusiasm by those opposed to abortion here, including opposition National MP for Tāmaki Simon O’Connor.

Pro-choice groups such as Abortion Rights Aotearoa (ALRANZ) expressed alarm, not only for American women but for what this might signal for New Zealand.

• READ MORE: The end of Roe v Wade would likely embolden global anti-abortion activists and politicians
• Roe v Wade overturned: what abortion access and reproductive rights look like around the world
• US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade – but for abortion opponents, this is just the beginning

This has left opposition leader Christopher Luxon with a dilemma. He found himself caught up in questions that put a spotlight on his pro-life values, politics and integrity.

Luxon’s anti-abortion beliefs are not news. In the days following his election as party leader late last year, when asked to confirm if, from his point of view, abortion was tantamount to murder, he clarified “that’s what a pro-life position is”.

Yet, in recent days, Luxon has repeatedly and emphatically sought to reassure voters National would not pursue a change to this country’s abortion laws should it win government.

Abortion is legal in Aotearoa, decriminalised in 2020 within the framework of the Abortion Legislation Act. It’s clear Luxon hopes his assurances will appease those of a pro-choice view, the position of most New Zealanders according to polling in 2019.

Principle and pragmatism in leadership
It has long been argued good leadership is underpinned by strength of character, a clear moral compass and integrity — in other words, consistency between one’s words and actions.

National MP Simon O’Connor has returned to Parliament with an apology to colleagues over a social media post that celebrated the US Supreme Court’s overturning of abortion law.https://t.co/dR4eBM8Z4K

— RNZ (@radionz) June 28, 2022

Whether a leader possesses the prudence to gauge what is a practically wise course of action in a given situation that upholds important values, or simply panders to what is politically safe and expedient, offers insights into their character.

Over time, we can discern if they lean more strongly toward being values-based or if they tend to align with what Machiavelli controversially advised: that to retain power a leader must appear to look good but be willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their position.

Of course both considerations have some role to play as no one is perfect. We should look for a matter of degree or emphasis. A more strongly Machiavellian orientation is associated with toxic leadership.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has characterised herself as a “pragmatic idealist”. Her track record indicates a willingness to accept considerable political heat in defence of key values.

This is seen, for example, in her sustained advocacy of covid-related health measures such as vaccine mandates and managed isolation, even when doing so was not the politically expedient path to follow.

Luxon’s leadership track record in the public domain is far less extensive. Much remains unknown or untested as to what kind of leader he is. Being leader of the opposition is, of course, a very different role to that of prime minister.

However, in his maiden speech Luxon described his Christian faith as something that anchors him and shapes his values, while also arguing politicians should not seek to force their beliefs on others.

His response to this week’s controversy proves he is willing to set aside his personal values for what is politically expedient. This suggests he is less of an idealist and more a pragmatist.

This may be a relief to the pro-choice lobby, given his anti-abortion beliefs. But if the political calculus changes, what might then happen?

Sums it up really. It is absolutely 100% a woman’s right to choose #AbortionBan #USA pic.twitter.com/JhgS4Txaqz

— Russ (@smiffy2609) June 25, 2022

The matter is not settled
New Zealand’s constitutional and legal systems differ from those of the US, but the Supreme Court decision proves it is possible to wind back access to abortion.

Even if Luxon’s current assurance is sincerely intended, it may not sustain should the broader political acceptability of his personal beliefs change. And on that front, there are grounds for concern.

The National Council of Women’s 2021 gender attitudes survey revealed a clear increase in more conservative, anti-egalitarian attitudes. Researchers at The Disinformation Project also found sexist and misogynistic themes feature strongly in the conspiracy-laden disinformation gaining influence in New Zealand.

If these kinds of shifts in public opinion continue to gather steam, it may become more politically tenable for Luxon to shift gear regarding New Zealand’s abortion laws.

In such a situation, the right to abortion may not be the only one imperilled. A 2019 survey in the US showed a strong connection between an anti-abortion or “pro-life” stance and more general anti-egalitarian views.

It is clear Luxon is aiming to reassure the public he has no intentions to advance changes to our abortion laws. But his seeming readiness to set aside personal beliefs in favour of what is politically viable also suggests that, if the political landscape changes, so too might his stance.

A broader question arises from this: if a leader is prepared to give up a presumably sincerely held conviction to secure more votes, what other values that matter to voters might they be willing to abandon in pursuit of political power?

Dr Suze Wilson is senior lecturer, School of Management, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

It all started with Yayak Yatmaka writing Militarism for Beginners, an Indonesian picture book intended for younger audiences that he wrote years ago when he lived in Germany.

Then, last year a member of a discussion group, consisting mostly of young idealist intellectuals, students, artists and activists like Yayak, became born-again after reading a book about the history of communism in Indonesia.

To make a long story short, the artist stumbled upon a historical fact that it was the Indonesian Communist Party’s (PKI) anti-colonialist and nationalist spirit in the early 1920s that fired up our founding fathers’ struggle for independence.

The reading gave the artist a whole new perspective that was never available to him at school — the PKI was in fact a significant movement in laying down the foundations of Indonesia but its contribution is nowhere to be found in history books.

“The only communism the youth know comes from the propaganda created by the New Order [regime], which stigmatised the PKI as a frightening party worthy of nothing but loathing,” says sculptor-cum-activist Dolorosa Sinaga, referring to Suharto’s authoritarian military-backed regime that controlled Indonesia between 1965 and 1998.

Dolorosa was the lead organiser of the Turn Left Festival that was disrupted by a bunch of intolerant thugs with the apparent backing of the police, with the latter then forcibly dispersing attendees when the event was just about to begin at Taman Ismail Marzuki, a government-owned cultural center in Jakarta on February 27.

Scores of people from an alliance of Islamic and nationalist groups chanted slogans, intimidated the organisers and accused them of being sympathetic to the PKI.

No official permit
The police argued that the gathering should be banned because “some groups” had raised objections and the organisers had failed to obtain the official permit.

The ban, which forced the organisers to relocate the festival to the premises of the nearby Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation, was only the latest incident in a string of banned events that include seminars, film screenings and publications containing anything that smacks of “leftist” activism (see “Left out in the cold”).

Instead of cowering, the festival organisers have vowed to extend the festival — that features discussions, leftist books sales and art shows — every weekend “until the nation has transformed for the better”.

They will be marching on with the battle cry of “resist Suharto’s propaganda”.

The more than 32 activists that spearheaded the festival have a noble purpose of making a better Indonesia that is free from fear, which has been deeply rooted due to the corrupt culture built by the Suharto regime, since he seized power on the heels of the 1965 deadly aborted coup, blamed on the PKI.

“Until today, we all see the continuing reproduction of the New Order [regime’s] culture and values,” Dolorosa says.

“With the Turn Left Festival, we want to resist the whole legacy of the New Order that managed to cling to power for so long thanks to their effective propaganda.

Suffering now
“Intolerance as we [festival organisers] are suffering now is an example of the New Order political culture I’m talking about.”

The main event was the launch of a provocatively titled book History of Indonesian Leftist Movements for Beginners and discussions about leftist movements that “few young people know about”.

“The festival aims to inspire the young and make them aware of the need to learn history that hasn’t been twisted, [in order] to build a better Indonesia. I’m wondering why the government is so afraid of the festival,” Dolorosa said.

It is not that the activists want to promote the “isms” as some government officials may suspect.

In fact, they believe that communism, Marxism and Leninism are dead and irrelevant. They seek to rewrite history, which they say has been distorted.

The Turn Left Festival is a major collective project mostly by and for younger activists who strive for greater freedom of speech. With the preparatory work having begun a year ago, the canceled event was hosted by 40 volunteers aged between 18 and 40 from major cities across Indonesia in addition to the 32 authors of the 527-page History of Indonesian Leftist Movements.

Among familiar names that co-authored the book are Ayumail, Harry Waluyo, Iwan Gunawan, Kuncoro Adibroto, Tsoe Tjen Marching, Usman Hamid and Yayak Yatmaka, just to name a few.

‘Education city’
Dhyta Caturani, one of the organising committee members, said Turn Left was only one of many similar events initiated by young people.

In Yogyakarta, an “education city” where activism has always been vibrant, the city held a discussion on the 1965 tragedy.

In Salatiga, Satya Wacana University students published Lentera despite a ban on its August 2015 edition on 1965.

The young want the state to allow them greater room to exercise their freedom of speech and have a say in policymaking.

“Our aim is to encourage young people to exercise critical thinking. We are targeting the young […] many of them quench their curiosity about what actually happens to their rights through the internet.”

The Indonesian Military (TNI), which officially quit politics after Suharto’s downfall but still wields clout in the government, retains its strong stance against communism as it believes the ideology still poses a threat to the state ideology, Pancasila.

A week after the festival was banned, Defence Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu told a media gathering that communism was one of the four main ideologies in the world that the military closely watched, with the other three being radicalism, socialism and Leninism.

Adopted liberalism
“It’s not that they are bad but it’s just because they are not suitable for Indonesia. The US may not be as strong as it is now had it not adopted liberalism. Communism is good in China. In Indonesia, radicalism began only after the Bali bombing [in 2002].”

Sharing Ryamizard’s concern, the Home Ministry’s director-general for political affairs and general administration, Sudarmo, warned that the danger of leftist movements were that they “lurk in the dark and wait for the right time to come into the open”.

Leftist ideologies, Sudarmo said, provoke civil organisations — especially the Islamic ones — to come forward and oppose activities they see as adverse to Pancasila.

Sudarmo, who also formerly worked at National Intelligence Agency (BIN), acknowledged most of the various hard-line groups that helped disperse the Turn Left Festival were registered with the Home Ministry and that the police did not use them to intimidate organizers as many suspected.

“Supporters of the festival may hold a grudge against the New Order but remember that everyone living in the country must follow the rules.”

By Kai Ping Lew

When Alistar Kata first asked if I would take part in this mini doco, The PMC Project, I was really excited for the opportunity. The Pacific Media Centre has added so much to my learning curve as a journalist and I was more than happy to have a way to give back to it.

It’s a crucial support system for anyone who wants to report on the Asia-Pacific region, and Alistar’s video gives a little insight into the work they do, the team there, and why it matters.

Most people who want to become a journalist get told that they won’t get paid a lot of money. They get told that the media industry is driven by commercial values, that the large media corporations are owned by a few people who drive the agenda and nothing of real importance that harms their interests will never make it into mainstream news.

They get told that governments and societal elites will shut them down if they ever try to cover anything that paints them in a bad light.

These things are more or less true to a certain extent, varying from country to country, but an aspiring journalist plods on anyway because we are idealistic.

We dream of a more equal society and hope that we will have some small part in making that happen.

We dream of exposing corruption at the highest level, of giving voice to those who do not have the means or the access to make themselves heard, of improving peoples’ lives by giving them information that can help inform their choices.

Media industry challenges
This dream can sometimes seem childish and naïve in the face of the derision of others and the challenges facing the media industry today. Many industry professionals who have been in journalism long enough have become jaded and speak of their battles with tones tinged with cynicism.

It’s easy to be cynical. It’s harder to stand by your intangible, nebulous dream and fight for it.

It’s harder to know that the road is long, the battles will be tough, and you will have to face Goliath armed with a pen and your wits, and jump into the fray anyway.

David Robie is one of the people who has been in journalism for as long as he has who continues to burn with passion and idealism.

Under him, the Pacific Media Centre has grown as a resource, a media outlet, and a haven where like-minded journalists can find their purpose anchored, their small struggles appreciated, and a word of advice to spur them on when all they see are roadblocks ahead.

It is a place that nurtures idealism when the fire is dwindling. It is an outlet for the unheard voices of the Pacific, to give greater prominence to their issues.

“Making a difference” is a lofty ideal to aim for, and us aspiring journalists need all the help we can get to reach it.

To that end, I am grateful for the opportunities and knowledge I have gained through the Pacific Media Centre and hope I can continue doing so, wherever I am in my career.

—