Constructive conversations

We are having an election on 14 October. I hope it is peaceful.

Last year’s local body elections were a bit of a wake-up call for me. The level of violent rhetoric and disinformation being reported on social media were genuinely shocking. And the anti-democratic campaigns waged by anti-vaxx and religious groups were an actual threat to our society, and the people who stand in elections.

Does that sound a little over the top? Then consider this. In December 2021 the government’s Combined Threat Assessment Group (CTAG) identified “the increasing prominence of threatening, anti-authority PMVE [politically motivated violent extremism] rhetoric” as the greatest shift in the threat landscape.

Two months after that we saw a group of protestors take over the grounds of Parliament, an occupation where threats soon turned into actual violence – fires, vandalism and attacks on police.

I was reminded of the potential for damage to society that comes with disinformation and social media outrage when Jacinda Ardern resigned the prime ministership in January. Alongside the expected punditry on who the new Labour leader would be, and whether they could compete effectively against National’s Christopher Luxon, there were unsettling stories about the abuse and threats Ardern had tolerated in her years at the top.

The number of threats against the PM tripled in the three years from 2019 to 2022. At the occupation of Parliament’s grounds, people called for her public trial and execution. Former PM Helen Clark called the abuse Ardern faced “unprecedented”.

According to researchers The Disinformation Project, online hate speech is becoming increasingly violent. And it is spilling over into offensive acts, such as doxxing – posting personal identifying information on the internet that enables others to abuse or harass that person.

In the paper Dangerous Speech, Misogyny and Democracy the researchers highlight “repeated misuse of the Companies Register” to target and dox relatives of politicians, academics and public servants.

As directors, we are very aware of the risk of having our home addresses shared with hostile individuals. It was a welcome relief when the government announced, in March 2022, that the requirement for directors to publish their residential addresses on the Companies Register would be ended in future legislation – this has not yet been implemented. The requirement for candidates in local body elections to publish their home addresses has already been removed.

Directors are also very aware of the value of managing competing views and having constructive conversations. Boards encourage each other to share different views in order to reach decisions that take into account all the expertise and experience around the table. Having a different political perspective is not a hindrance to working with others constructively, and certainly not an excuse for threats or anti-social behaviour.

That’s why board character, diversity and inclusion are recurring topics in governance. Diversity of thought can lead to better decision making if it leads to the consideration of different perspectives. Well-managed disagreements can result in more thoughtful and effective decision making if the board is committed to achieving a consensus.

Of course, this highlights the centrality of ethics, values and inclusiveness to the success of every board. Board character, in this sense, is very much about values. Directors with courage and commitment, a strong sense of purpose and values, and a commitment to culture and inclusion will comprise a board that sets the right culture for an organisation.

We must await the outcome of the Independent Electoral Review to see if there are practical ways to ensure known false statements do not derail public debate during an election campaign. The review is looking into disinformation and misinformation alongside the rules around party registration and candidate selection. Balancing the right to voice an opinion with minimising harm from false statements, and balancing the right to participate in an election with the terrorism risk identified by the CTAG, will undoubtedly be a challenge. (The review is not due to report back until after this parliamentary election.)

I would like to see a general election campaign this year in which different perspectives are voiced robustly, but without vitriol of the kind we began to see in the local elections of 2022. Let’s hope that good sense, good information and good manners come to the fore as we approach October 14. 

About the author

KP is the Chief Executive of the Institute of Directors. She is a qualified lawyer and a Distinguished Fellow of the Human Resources Institute of New Zealand, Co-deputy Chair of the Global Network of Directors Institutes (GNDI), Chair of the Brian Picot Ethical Leadership advisory board and was previously Chair of the Wellington Homeless Women’s Trust.  With extensive governance and leadership experience, she is actively involved in community initiatives. Read more