<- Back

 Mr Smith Goes to Canberra

by Chris Mulligan | 14-Dec-2009 | Comments (1) Tags: politics, Government  6 ratings. Please log in to rate and comment

Mr Smith Goes to Canberra

Chris Mulligan

Any newspaper journalist worth his salt knows that stories which make guaranteed page-one headlines invariably feature government bungling, corruption, sex or footballers – ideally, combinations thereof. Criticising and lambasting governments and politicians has become a national past-time, and rarely a week goes by without some sort of national outrage or shame. In countless areas of life, ‘the government’ is seen as the cause of all of life’s problems rather than being a solution to them. And while a degree of scepticism to power and those with it is healthy, Australians’ lack of faith and insight into their political leaders and processes is in fact, more than just benign indifference. Mainstream ignorance, apathy and aversion to politics means that public policy and decision making is left to the ideologues, the career power-seekers and the vested-interests. Our democracy deserves better – and by changing the way Australians view and interact with government, we can better change Australia itself.

As a country seemingly more interested in our sportsmen’s exploits, particularly the off-field ones, most people espouse the “don’t know and don’t care” mentality to any topic even remotely political. Around the nation’s Christmas parties and office water coolers, its fine to mercilessly attack those “good-for-nothing” pollies; they’re all corrupt, incompetent, or both. But express too many real opinions on matters of contentious public policy, and you’ve committed a grave social faux-pas. We encourage conscious indifference and ignorance towards politics and policy, and this is part of the reason that so many good ideas and reforms are stillborn or stymied.

The 1999 referendum on the Australian republic was a perfect example of a polarising national debate, best avoided in polite conversation, which was constantly being dummied down to its simplest form. There were occasional public glimpses of erudite thought on both sides of the issue, but in the end, the model proposed was defeated by glib one liners like “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” and pejorative slogans like “the politicians’ republic”. Similarly, with the current debate over emissions trading, the government’s failure to lead the debate with detail and depth has reduced it to a sound-bite war between “a big new tax” versus “climate change denial”. Regardless of the merits of an emissions trading scheme, it deserves more public scrutiny and deliberation than to be just a choice between two snappy, focus-group tested catchphrases.

Both the politicians and the media are wrong in assuming that they need to appeal to the lowest common intellectual denominator. There will always be a market for high-quality investigative journalism and didactic explanations of complex policy and processes. And by innovating with content delivery systems in the online environment, the media can maintain its relevance, readership base and role as the facilitators of important national discussions. 

Mindful of the irony of criticising them with such trite political double-speak, it also remains true that politicians, in general, need to better engage with their constituents and the Australian public. Community cabinet meetings have been a successful initiative in this regard, and could be broadened to roaming ‘community parliaments’, which would bring democracy, in all its harsh, naked beauty to people who would otherwise never set foot near Capitol Hill.

The use of technology and web 2.0 tools could also be broadened, and ‘government 2.0’ projects are already under investigation. However, engaging with people online means more than just having a staffer periodically update a blog or social networking site. For the web to work as a tool for bringing policy and politics closer to the public, it must be a two-way flow of ideas, opinions and information that responds to individuals and gives people recognition that their voices are being heard, and acted upon.

The only governments people respect are clean ones, and politicians nationwide need to eliminate the most obvious root causes, and perceived causes, of impropriety and corruption. Recently, there have been a number of Commonwealth and state investigations into issues such as campaign finance reform, pecuniary interest declarations and caps on political donations and spending. These reports need to be backed up with action, on a national level, which should also further strengthen existing anti-corruption agencies.

Another unspoken element undoubtedly contributing to public disdain for politics is the politicians themselves. Many seemingly have scant professional or life experience outside of politics, giving them a narrow, bitter and entirely adversarial view of the world. Party or parliamentary quotas for candidates from various non-political professional backgrounds, as well as restrictions on candidates from outside their electoral boundaries would be a good way to diversify our parliamentarians beyond the usual lot of staffers, party officials and other assorted apparatchiks. That is not to say that machine-men are any less capable or well-meaning than, say a doctor or local businessman, but our politicians should reflect our diversity as a nation, and there are few downsides to encouraging more bright, capable people into public service.

Knowing only a world of egos, ambition, and deal-making, many of the current students of the political arts perpetuate the belief that the only barriers to progress are the opposition political parties. In reality though, neither of the major parties are enemies of progress, and too often, good ideas and bills are defeated down party lines. A relaxation of internal party discipline allowing Members and Senators, even Ministers bound by cabinet solidarity, to cross the floor and support meritorious bills they truly believed in would demonstrate that all elected officials aren’t just puppets to some invisible, omnipotent political hand. Eliminating the farcical Dorothy Dixers in question-time and changing the Parliamentary standing orders might even help to encourage real discourse instead of the usual theatrics.

Like any debate worth having, there are no easy answers when it comes to the question of how to change Australian attitudes towards politics. But to have a truly vibrant and representative democracy, we need to shed our counterproductive cynicism and apathy and embrace politics as our society’s most powerful force for self-improvement and change.

Things to Do

 More Entries

 17 ratings.

 8 ratings.

 16 ratings.