Revolutionary governments can teach us many things, not the least of which is what to expect when ideologies clash head-on.

No revolutionary regime, or counter-revolutionary regime, for that matter, can survive in a political environment where the dominant ideologies of the past are allowed to remain in place. Either the old ideas are rooted out, or the new ideas fail to take hold. History suggests that there is no room for compromise in these ideological clashes. Agreeing to disagree about the fundamental rules of societal organisation is not an option.

Perhaps the most telling example of a revolution that didn’t go far enough was the one that took place in Germany at the end of World War I. Amid military and civil chaos, Imperial Germany faltered and fell. As anxious crowds gathered outside the German Parliament, Philipp Scheidemann stepped out onto a balcony and, all unbeknown to his Social-Democratic Party comrades, declared the German Republic.

But what sort of republic? That was the question. Radical socialists pressed for a state modelled on the Russian Soviet regime of Vladimir Lenin and his Bolsheviks. The more moderate Social Democrats, however, demanded a constitutional republic in which liberty and property were to co-exist peacefully alongside the fruits of social solidarity. After considerable blood-letting, it was this, the so-called Weimar Republic, that Germany got.

Except that, where it mattered – in the courts, the civil service, the universities and the press – the old, anti-democratic and authoritarian beliefs of Imperial Germany continued to hold sway. What this meant was that, when push came to shove politically, those old ideas could still inflict enormous damage.

When an ex-pat Austrian nationalist agitator attempted to overthrow the Republic in 1923, the reactionary judges who presided over his treason trial sentenced him to a derisory five years. He was out in one. Ten years later, the same nationalist agitator, now Germany’s Chancellor, would sentence the Weimar Republic to death.

As New Zealanders are fast discovering, the opinions of judges – be they revolutionary or reactionary – matter.

Whether the present New Zealand Government deserves to be branded revolutionary or reactionary is, naturally, a matter for debate. Those characterising the National-Act-NZ First coalition as a force for revolutionary change would only do so because they see it as attacking a combination of powerful, ideologically driven, institutions which stand accused of subtly, and not-so-subtly, undermining New Zealand’s democracy.

If a revolution is defined as "the overturning of a political, social or economic order, in favour of a new system", then, notwithstanding the fact that its parties are generally thought of as “right-wing”, the coalition Government can, indeed, be described as revolutionary.

After all, it was the ostensibly “left-wing” Labour Party that, in the mid-1980s, found itself described as the instigator of a “Quiet Revolution”. Certainly, Labour was responsible for overturning the established economic order of New Zealand, and replacing it with a system driven by the neoliberal ideology espoused by the “New Right”. The social and political upheavals which followed in the wake of “Rogernomics” only reinforced the Fourth Labour Government’s revolutionary reputation.

Crucially, Labour’s revolutionaries lost little time in rooting out the old Keynesian ideas that had, for more than 30 years, guided successive New Zealand governments. Very little of the old order survived the attentions of the “Rogernomes”, and what did remain, most notably the trade union movement, was dealt with decisively by the National Party Government that followed them.

Labour and the Greens, and what passes for the Left in 2024, would, however, laugh to scorn the characterisation of Christopher Luxon’s government as “revolutionary”. In their eyes this is an indisputably “reactionary” government, dedicated to restoring white supremacy, patriarchy and the rightful order of things in the workplace; elevating the virtuous countryside above the sinful cities; and separating the deserving from the undeserving poor.

The problem with this characterisation is that when it comes to implementing its “Far-Right” agenda, the coalition Government appears to be pushing on an open door. Were the institutions responsible for delegitimising the supporters of colonisation; promoting diversity, equity and inclusion; and eliminating “disinformation” and “hate speech” from the national conversation; actually articulating the aspirations of the electorate, then there would surely be a steadily rising volume of protest from ordinary New Zealanders.

That no such pushback from the masses has yet occurred strongly suggests that the best efforts of the judiciary, the public service, the universities and the mainstream news media have been less than persuasive.

Indeed, the absence of any serious resistance to the coalition Government’s overt antagonism towards so many of these institutions offers strong confirmation that they are regarded by a great many Kiwis as the “woke establishment” which National, Act and NZ First – their revolutionary agents – are in the process of overthrowing.

Certainly, the findings of the recent Ipsos poll, which recorded between one-half and two-thirds of New Zealanders believing that their country is broken and in need of a strong leader to force the elites into line, argue forcefully that a root-and-branch revolution-from-above would not be met with much in the way of popular resistance.

What is much less clear is whether the Prime Minister understands what he must do to honour the voters’ trust in National’s revolutionary agenda. He does not appear to grasp the fact, so obvious to the rest of the country, that the woke establishment is not his friend. Indeed, he has shown an alarming willingness to seek its approval and follow its advice.

But, getting rid of thousands of public servants will turn out to be a pointless political gesture if the country’s top bureaucrats and their ideas remain firmly in place. The same is true of the judiciary, especially if their ambitions are not rejected as constitutionally offensive.

Rather than fearing the criticism of the woke establishment’s defenders, Luxon should, like the reforming Franklin D Roosevelt, “welcome their enmity”. Historically, the volume of the howls of outrage emanating from the status quo’s defenders has been a very reliable measure of the Revolution’s success.

If Luxon wishes to be more than a one-term prime minister, then he cannot afford to shirk the revolutionary’s most important obligation – to ensure that the ideas of the old order have nowhere to grow and flourish in the new regime. Neoliberalism is still with us; still strong; because all the institutions capable of fostering ideas inimical to its survival were either destroyed or regularly purged of ideological dissenters.

The Prime Minister may be labouring under the misapprehension that he has nothing to worry about in the short-to-medium term because the Opposition parties are simply not attracting the voter support needed to topple his Government. Given the volatility of the present political climate, however, that could change very quickly. Especially since journalists and left-wing politicians have so much in common. And journalists can inflict such harm when the public service is drip-feeding them highly sensitive and damaging information on a weekly basis.

Besides, it may not be the Left that poses the greatest threat to Luxon. A revolutionary leader who refuses to eliminate the revolution’s enemies should probably watch his back.

If Luxon’s comrades fail to strike him down, then it’s only a matter of time before the reactionaries find their Fuhrer.