Christopher Luxon seems to want “a bob each way”. Surely the task of a (would-be) political leader is to lead – to make a decision, to make a choice between two options, to realise that you can’t ride two horses at once. His attempt to support the law and order option while at the same time trying to ingratiate himself with the protesters is surely not the action of a future Prime Minister. Heaven help us if he were ever entrusted with the responsibility of making some tough decisions.

As the “protest” in Wellington draws to its close, and middle New Zealand begins to re-assert itself, the question arises – what will be the political fallout from this unhappy episode?

Many commentators will already have concluded, as much of the media have constantly suggested, that the government will have suffered some damage in the voters’ minds from the scenes in Wellington, but the opposite may well be the case.

To see highlighted the stark contrast between a responsible and democratically elected government on the one hand, and the violence, anarchism and extremism of their critics on the other, may well have worked in the government’s favour; if that is the choice we must make, the ordinary voter may say, we have no hesitation in firming up our support for democracy and law and order.

Nor is it the case that other political groupings will have done themselves much good. David Seymour, gadfly that he is, has tried to ingratiate himself with the demonstrators. He is, after all, entirely poll-driven, and is terrified of being outflanked on the right. He will happily abandon sensible middle opinion if that is what is needed to hang on to the support he hopes to gain from the extreme right.

Nor has Christoper Luxon, for the National party, cut a particularly impressive figure. He has hoped to profit from the government’s difficulties and has therefore refrained from helping them by appealing to traditional New Zealand values – the values that National is supposed to represent. On the other hand, he has recognised that to be seen to be condoning the actions and threats of the demonstrators would be electoral suicide.

As a consequence, he has been left to flap his hands ineffectually – a mere spectator rather a contributor to a solution. There was little sign here of the ability, shown in spades by the Prime Minister, to stay calm and hold the line in the face of the most extreme pressure.

Political bias in news reporting can take a variety of forms – as today’s Herald demonstrates.

The front page headline over an article written by an Auckland university economics professor reads, “Don’t Buy the Baloney Over Unemployment Insurance”. The headline appears with a large photograph of Grant Robertson, the Minister of Finance, who has recently introduced a new unemployment insurance scheme.

Many readers who don’t want to plough through an academic article on unemployment insurance will see only the headline; they will, not unnaturally, get the impression that the article is critical of the Minister’s proposal.

In fact, the article commends the proposal and rebuts the criticisms that the National party and others have made of it. The Herald’s readers have been poorly served, do you not think?

Winston Churchill once said that “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

We also know that democracy is a tender plant, that is constantly assailed by those – usually the rich and powerful – who find it irksome to suffer the limitations it places on them. It needs to be defended robustly if it is to continue to protect our liberties.

A democracy that is not defended by the people it serves will quickly wither and die. Those who have found themselves in a society that is not protected by democracy – and by its soul mate, the rule of law – have quickly discovered how tough life can be under a regime without either of those safeguards.

A democracy will continue to flourish only if the people defend it. If the will to do so weakens, the long dark night of totalitarianism beckons.

A society in which an extremist minority conduct themselves without regard for the law or for the wellbeing of their fellow-citizens and whose explicit goal it is to “get rid of the government” must be regarded as under serious threat – and the challenge to it must be regarded as nothing less than an attempted insurrection.

That threat must be met and averted by the combined will and determination the people as a whole. If they cannot summon up that will and determination, democracy is finished – and power will be seized by those with the loudest mouths and the most selfish and self-regarding motives.

All of this makes even more extraordinary the fact that a number of highly placed and well-regarded New Zealanders have expressed their support for the so-called “protesters” on Parliament’s grounds.

Such people seem to have allowed their political opposition to our elected government and desire to “get rid” of it – and their loss of confidence in their ability to vote it out of office – to take over what we might have hoped was their common sense and understanding of the value of democracy.

Those who sup with the devil must have a long spoon. By the time these misguided revolutionaries wake up to their mistake, it will be too late. There would be few freedoms – and certainly no ability to protest – under a non-democratic regime.

If the response of the authorities to the protest on Parliament’s grounds is to be appropriate and effective, it is important that we understand who these people are and what it is that they want.

There are, of course, some of them who are committed to a wide range of different and particular causes, and some who are just broadly hostile to the present government, but for the majority, the goal is simply to be there. That is because they are people who are accustomed to being ignored and overlooked. The prize they seek – and are delighted to have secured – is to be taken notice of, to be at the centre of events, to be the cynosure of all eyes. If they agree to move away, they will have to give up these gains.

If just being there is the goal, the rest follows. It becomes a great adventure, a chance for a holiday (of a kind), and to enjoy – as they look overseas to North America and other areas – the sense that they are part of a great international movement. Above all, it gives them – the usually powerless – the thrilling sense that, at last, they count for something.

If this analysis is correct, it provides some clues as to the proper and most effective response. The deployment of police to remove them simply adds to the sense of crisis and drama and confirms to them that they are doing something that matters.

It may be that the best tactic is simply to ignore them – to use the police only to prevent illegal behaviour, to protect the innocent (including the unfortunate children who find themselves involved) and to defend Parliament against invasion, but otherwise to leave them to feel the disapproval of most of their fellow-citizens, as they pursue their attempt to enjoy the mud and filth of the disease-ridden campsite they have created.