Jacinda Ardern: Inspirational Leader or the Tyrant Who Abandoned us?
Understanding a polarised legacy...
Few political figures in recent history have evoked such contrasting emotions as Jacinda Ardern. To her supporters, she stands as an emblem of progressive leadership - empathetic, decisive, and inspiring. To her detractors, her tenure left a legacy of overreach, failure to deliver, economic damage, and deep division.
Her resignation as Prime Minister in 2023 and subsequent international roles further stoked these opposing narratives. Was she an empathetic leader who brought compassion and clarity to a dark period for Aotearoa New Zealand, or a political opportunist who abandoned her nation amid the wreckage she and her party created? The truth, as with most political legacies, lies somewhere in between.
“The Empathetic and Inspirational Leader”
Ardern’s rise to global prominence was swift, and for many, deeply symbolic. In the aftermath of the Christchurch mosque attacks in 2019, her response resonated around the world. Wearing a hijab as a sign of solidarity with the Muslim community, Ardern’s pledge that “they are us” was more than just rhetoric - it was a reflection of a leadership style that prioritised empathy and inclusion. In an era where divisive leaders were becoming the global norm, Ardern was seen as a refreshing alternative: a leader who could unite people in shared grief and forge a national sense of togetherness in the face of tragedy.
For many New Zealanders, this was only the beginning of Ardern’s inspirational leadership. Her handling of the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic attracted international praise. “Go hard, go early,” she proclaimed, as New Zealand implemented some of the strictest lockdown and border measures in the world. These actions, paired with Ardern’s regular, calm communication with the public, helped New Zealand keep its COVID-19 death toll exceptionally low in the early days of the pandemic. In contrast to the chaotic responses seen in many other countries, New Zealand stood as a model of what swift, decisive action could achieve under Ardern’s leadership.
On the global stage, Ardern became a symbol of a new kind of progressive leadership - one that balanced strength with empathy, decisiveness with compassion. Her speeches at international forums like the United Nations focused not only on her domestic policies but also on wider global challenges, including climate change and human rights. Ardern became a figurehead for a progressive movement that saw leadership as not just about power, but about humanity.
At home, her government sought to deliver on the progressive promises that had brought her to power in 2017. Mental health, child poverty, housing and climate change were areas where Ardern hoped to make lasting changes. Initiatives like the 2019 Wellbeing Budget, which shifted the focus away from traditional economic indicators like GDP and towards broader measures of social well-being, reflected her attempt to rethink how governments could serve their people. The expansion of free mental health services, increased funding for schools, KiwiBuild and policies aimed at reducing child poverty were cornerstones of this new, people-centered approach to governance.
“The Damaging Tyrant”
However, Ardern’s leadership, praised by many, was also deeply polarising, especially among those who saw her policies as damaging or authoritarian. Nowhere was this division more evident than in the later stages of her COVID-19 response. While the initial lockdowns were broadly accepted, the extension of these measures, along with vaccine mandates and strict border controls, led to growing frustration and dissent.
For many, Ardern’s policies came to symbolise an overreach of government power. Families were separated for extended periods, businesses were shuttered, people were forced to leave their jobs and everyday life became dominated by government-imposed restrictions. For many, what began as a legitimate health response evolved into a heavy-handed exercise in control, infringing on individual freedoms and contributing to increasing economic pain and future national debt burden.
One of the most significant criticisms of Ardern’s leadership centers around the state of New Zealand’s economy during and after her tenure. Housing and rent prices continued to soar under her government, exacerbating a crisis that made homeownership increasingly unattainable for many New Zealanders - ironically in particular the younger generations and poorer New Zealanders often supporting her.
Despite promises of reform and a commitment to building more affordable housing, Ardern’s policies failed to make significant inroads into addressing the housing crisis. Indeed, with the borders closed and immigration effectively paused, it was a unique opportunity lost to make a genuine impact on New Zealand’s housing stock deficit.
Many middle-class and lower-income New Zealanders felt the increasing pressure of rising living costs, compounded by wage stagnation. Critics argue that her government’s focus on progressive social policies came at the expense of practical, ‘bread-and-butter’ issues like cost of living, housing affordability, crime and economic growth.
Mental health, too, became a contentious area of Ardern’s legacy. Her 2017 campaign promised a greater focus on mental health, and while her government did allocate significant resources towards this issue, results were mixed. The pressures of prolonged lockdowns, economic uncertainty, and social isolation during the pandemic saw New Zealand’s mental health crisis worsen, with rising rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental health challenges. Many critics argued that while Ardern talked extensively about mental health, the outcomes failed to match the promises.
Moreover, her focus on progressive social policies often alienated large segments of the electorate. From gender identity legislation to bold climate action, Ardern’s government embraced policies that resonated strongly with progressive voters but alienated many others. For conservative and centrist New Zealanders, these policies felt like an imposition of ideology, furthering a divide between urban progressives and voters more interested in results than rhetoric. In their view, Ardern’s government was out of touch with the concerns of everyday New Zealanders, focused instead on issues that did not reflect the priorities of the broader population.
Ardern’s clarion call to “be kind”, still regularly repeated but selectively applied by many of her supporters, created an increasingly untenable contradiction for her detractors as Labour’s policies, especially in regard to COVID-19 and cost of living, increasingly seemed anything but.
Then came her resignation. In early 2023, Ardern announced that she no longer had "enough in the tank" to continue as Prime Minister, a move that caught many by surprise. Her decision was praised by supporters as an act of self-awareness and humility, a recognition that political leaders, too, are human. But to her critics, it was seen as an abdication of responsibility.
At a time when New Zealand faced numerous challenges - rising inflation, continued housing shortages, and a fraying social fabric - Ardern’s resignation was viewed by many as abandoning ship. The fact that she soon accepted prestigious international opportunities, including a fellowship at Harvard, only added to the perception that she had chosen personal advancement over her country’s needs.
Understanding the Dichotomy
So, why does Ardern inspire such extreme reactions? Her supporters and critics both have legitimate reasons for their strong feelings. On the one hand, Ardern’s leadership style, centered on empathy and inclusion, resonated powerfully in moments of crisis. Her handling of the Christchurch mosque shootings and her early COVID-19 response showcased a leader who could unite a nation and protect its people. Her progressive policies on mental health, child poverty, and climate change reflected a vision for a more compassionate, sustainable future.
But on the other hand, the cracks in her leadership became more apparent over time. Ardern’s government failed to address the housing crisis, rising inequality, child poverty, crime, and the growing division and discontent among those who felt left behind by her policies and failure to convert promise into measurable change. The pandemic, which had initially been a source of strength for her leadership, became a millstone as the costs and impacts of extended lockdowns and mandates mounted. And her resignation, while understandable on a personal level, felt to many like an abandonment of the challenges she had helped create.
The truth is, Ardern’s legacy is both highly admirable and deeply flawed. Her supporters are right to praise her compassion, communication skills, and commitment to progressive values. But her critics are equally justified in pointing out the gaps between her rhetoric and results, particularly in terms of policy and public service delivery, economic management and handling social division. Both views reflect aspects of her leadership and legacy that are real and meaningful, which is why they continue to provoke such strong responses.
Legacy and Future Reflection
Jacinda Ardern’s legacy will be debated for years to come, both in New Zealand and internationally. She remains a global figure, a symbol of progressive leadership admired by many around the world. Her emphasis on empathy and compassion in governance, particularly in moments of crisis, is likely to be remembered as a positive contribution to and influence on political discourse.
However, the unresolved issues of her tenure - particularly around housing, economic inequality, social division, and the fallout from her pandemic policies will continue to shape New Zealand’s political landscape long after her departure. Ardern’s legacy will be defined not only by her own actions but by how future governments address the challenges she left behind. Her international career, while personally successful, will also serve as a reminder to her critics that she left New Zealand at a time of significant need.
Understanding Ardern’s legacy requires moving beyond simplistic narratives and acknowledging the complexity of her time in office. Both her admirers and her detractors can find ample evidence to support their views, but neither can claim a monopoly on the truth.
Ultimately, Jacinda Ardern’s legacy underscores the immense challenge of leading a nation in an age of deepening division and amid the evolution of influence from legacy media to social media. She governed a country where historical grievances remain unresolved, a unifying vision for the future is elusive, and the machinery of governance - both the political system and an underperforming public service, struggles to rise to the moment. Her tenure reflects the complexities of leadership in a nation grappling with its past, uncertain of its future, and constrained by the imperfections of its institutions and divisions of it’s people.
Perhaps the most valuable aspect of Jacinda Ardern’s legacy - regardless of whether you admire or despise her - is the profound opportunity it offers New Zealand to reflect and learn. Yet, as a nation, we seem dangerously close to squandering this opportunity. Political parties, and their loyal supporters, appear less interested in addressing the lessons of her tenure than in perpetuating its shortcomings. The centre-right seems fixated on outcomes, often neglecting the empathy needed to carry people with them. The centre-left remains committed to compassion but risks losing sight of the economic discipline required to turn ideals into enduring realities.
Both approaches are incomplete and flawed, highlighting the need for something New Zealand has not yet seen: a leadership vision that unites compassion and capability, a strategic direction that transcends division, and a willingness to embrace complexity for the greater good. The question is no longer just about Jacinda Ardern’s legacy - it’s about who among us has the courage and wisdom to rise to the occasion. Who can move beyond partisan squabbles to guide this nation toward a unified, inclusive future that fully realises our extraordinary potential?