Rundle: we’re entering a new dimension here, people
|
You can tell that something that resembles politics is happening in Australia now, by the chorus of derision that professional insiders are directing at the three rural independents, and any suggestion that this impasse of a result may be an opportunity for the country to stop and think about what sort of political institutions and processes it wants. With the ‘doughty three’ (like that huh?), releasing their seven point letter to the PM, the establishment commentariat has gone into panicky overdrive in an attempt to head it off. It’s bad enough the Greens have snuck into the Lower House (for a second, not first time), now there’s three possibly, four independents. And that godamn WA National won’t take the whip. You can see why they’re spitting. Imagine if you had to report politics on your front page, rather than writing a series of memos to party heavies, cunningly disguised as actual news. Thus Michelle Grattan in The Age:
What? Beyond change that can be absorbed back into the system? Noooooooooooo!!!! This is a terrible election result for Australian foreign policy, Greg Sheets Sheridan wrote, mourning that the man of steel would not be succeeded by the age of Iron. The Greens are less fussed about Afghanistan than they were about Iraq…But they might make the difference in dissuading it from offering any increased help there, or undertaking any new security role either. God, a prudent foreign policy with checks and balances on war? Nooooooooooo!!!! None of this will be easy as demonstrated by the confused ramblings of Rob Oakeshott during the past 24 hours, Paul Polonius Kelly remarks. Forget the nonsense that party politics has taken a blow or is in retreat. Not easy? No business as usual? Nooooooooo!!!! Tim Soutphommasane, the Oz’s pet left philosopher, counselled against ‘educated despair’ by which he meant any meditating on whether things could be done other than through the existing party shells. And Dennis Shanahan simply wants a new election to be held immediately, and to keep repeating it until we get it Right. The 2010 election result has offered that rarest and most blessed of things, a rupture and a discontinuity in the process. It’s one that makes it impossible to sell the line that the parliamentary electoral system we are ruled by has some deep-seated pole of wisdom that somehow expresses rather than imposes a political form. What the result is making clear to people is the inherent arbitrariness of the system, its closed nature, and the way in which that is obscured when a party is elected with an unchallengeable majority. The difficulty for the business as usual crowd, is that they spend so much time celebrating the virtues of the single member electorate system, that when it throws up a number of actual single members, they can’t damn it out of hand. And when such members begin to suggest that the process by which they were chosen could be reflexively acted on by both MPs and the public, the business-as-usual crowd panic about stability. Weird, isn’t it? Post-election Iraq has been without a government for several months, with no working coalition in sight, and this is an example of democracy at work. Australia has a few days or weeks with no majority party but a process of rational and open negotiation, and it’s a disaster. What has happened in Australia, in little more than the wink of an eye, is that the political question has been pushed into an entirely new dimension. Ever since the 1970s the economic question has lain moribund as a major political division, no matter what lip service is paid to the gulf separating etc etc, and the occasional flashpoint such as WorkChoices. The political question who leads, how and through what institutions has barely been regarded as political at all, or cynically manipulated, as in Howard’s handling of the Republic debate. The virtual stasis of both these questions is one reason why so much political energy flows into cultural questions and why culture wars become the dominant mode of struggle. Once an interruption such as the 2010 election makes it impossible for that stasis to be maintained, the energy flows back into the political question, and real change can be imagined by all except those whose job depends on nothing changing ever, ie the mainstream commentariat. Once that happens, the left/right divisions based overwhelmingly on the economic (and social-cultural) question cease to be of primary importance, and there is the possibility of new processes, and new flows which make provisional blocs in different ways. It’s the most imaginative solutions that become the most possible. Thus, why should we not consider Rob Oakeshott’s idea of a multi-party cabinet? Why is Dennis Shanalamadingdong’s idea of a whole new election the ‘sensible’ idea, while Oakeshott’s idea that the people who actually have been elected form a government seen as the whacky one? The Constitution recognises parliament, the GG as head-of-state, and her/his appointed ministers as government. It has nothing to say about prime ministers or parties. So Shanahan’s suggestion is that the system has failed because it worked. What’s happened in this election is that the process of parliamentary electoral politics which is minimally democratic and the party-based politics of interests, which isn’t democratic in the slightest, have come into contradiction, in a situation where the system usually silently serves the interests. The profound cynicism and mild fear of the commentariat have caused them to back the interests against the system. The process has left many people high and dry, desperate to catch up. Thus Paul Kelly, who disguises his cynical anti-democratic power elitism by sporadic attacks on cultural elites, is desperate for a cozy party system that can be nagged to impose a yet more neoliberal agenda, against the oft-expressed wishes of the mass of the Australian people. The fetishisation of ‘stability’, as if the country was Bosnia-Herzegovina one heartbeat away from a shooting war, is a con. If we are so pusillanimous as to entirely subordinate our political process to the flickering of the global markets, then we may as well let Goldman Sachs choose the government. Stability is the very achievement that allows a country the luxury of uncertainty, when isolated outbreaks of actual public will throw up an ensemble capable of creating a new situation. I’m under no illusion that the rural independents are about to put the whole constitution and political apparatus into play. But they don’t need to. The mere process over the last three days has done more to make visible the invisible structures of power, and their potential (if not straightforward) transformability, than a hundred civics lessons. Other gains, such as an increased role for private members bills, would serve to bang the wedge a little further into the old tree dead. Stability is not the issue, nor is it the danger. The danger is a politics so deadened that only the most demented and monomaniacal, the Feeneys, Shortens, and Bitars, can stand it, and everyone else retires to their private lives. The more the commentariat shriek in fear, the more interesting the ride. The independents and minor parties should push this process until the rivets are popping. |
|
|
|
28 Comments
The test of whether things will work is on the floor of the house, and I can’t see the GG agreeing to an election until it is demonstrated that one side or other does not have the confidence of the House. This is democracy as it is intended surely.
“And Dennis Shanahan simply wants a new election to be held immediately, and to keep repeating it until we get it Right.”
Brilliant, that capital R is right on the money
Oh Dear, Guy, you just don’t understand how difficult the ideas you and Oakeshott are peddling would make the lives of lobbyists.
Those brave and publicly-spirited people, representing worthy interest groups — pharmacists, miners, the coal industry, the liquor industry, the tobacco industry — to name just a few — understand the virtue of the two party system. It makes for low transaction costs — one contact with the minister, one with the shadow minister, and all is done.
Don’t you have any sympathy for them?
I’ve paid less attention to the election than any since before I could read and now it’s the most interesting result in that time too!
I don’t agree with most of the politics of the Independents but at least they say what they mean, have principles and stand up for parliament (with its many flaws) and I’d vote for them before any of the major parties.
I haven’t paid much attention to the MSM for years with the exception of Radio National (on the edge as it were, but terrible during this last election campaign) and hear more about them through crikey (and RN) than directly, but that’s more than enough. Their fear and loathing is palpable and sickening, reading their tea leaves along with the back room party boys and never going anywhere near policy. Dear oh dear, isn’t this little period going to be taxing for them…..
I wonder, does this mean you’re still backing a Liberal/National/Something coalition government? How effectively could they prosecute this agenda of reform if they’re the slaves to the market? What gives, Rundle?
One of your best, Guy. “Stability is the very achievement that allows a country the luxury of uncertainty …” - spot on.
Thank God that at least two journalists, Keane and Rundle, are finally reflecting the views and thoughts of real people in the electorate. The election result perfectly reflects the cynicism and skepticism of the electorate. Even those of us who reluctantly voted for one of the major parties because of misplaced loyalty have rejoiced in the result. Consultation, left/right compromise, the forsaking of “winner takes all” politics can only be good for democracy. It never ceases to amaze me that after every election, the winning major party claims a ‘never to be challenged mandate’ even though just less than 50% of the electorate did not vote for them. The only pity is that Keane and Rundle are not in the establishment, or should I say, Murdoch press.
Shanahan is a dirty stain on good journalism
As a geneticist, of course I would say it the great creator. The driving force for the next evolutionary step. Of course there are always victims, evolutionary dead-ends; economic rationalism is already up one of those cul-de-sacs. Not always but in this case the victors can afford to be generous to the losers. After all the Neanderthals lived on, side by side with Homo sapiens, for another 30,000 years or so. Bring it on. Let the Darwinian forces rip apart the reactionaries and the Shanalamadingdongs.
Let me be audacious and respond to save you from a withering Rundle putdown. I do not believe Guy was “backing” a Coalition but rather saying that if it took such an awful event to shock the other players into the necessary forward evolutionary move, then bring it on. It would be just a transient event and a small price to pay for the potential pay off. But no one, including obviously Shanalamadingdong believes Abbott has any real chance anymore.
Good article Guy…
That such a gray nothing of a campaign, with all life and truth sucked out, could give rise to such a fascinating and enlivening process as this must surely be a natural wonder.
Initially I was hoping for a narrow Labor victory, not able to stomach the Abbott/Hockey/Barnyard creatures, flapping and fulminating in the Limited News echo chamber, clueless, visionless, and completely reactionary. OK, Gillard was bland, but we know she can be a feisty fighter when the poll blinkers aren’t on, and Labor aren’t (or weren’t) entirely without some socially redeeming policies.
But then Keane went and turned me! Let Labor spend a long night of darkness searching its soul and purging its mechanoids, poll-jockeys, and marketing maestros until it rediscovers that it needs to believe in something and stand up for it.
He’s right, of course.
So here we are, poised in a moment of excruciating potential, new paradigms flowing from the lips of the Mad Katter, (of all people), and we are all enthralled with the prospect that just once in our lifetimes, politics just may be, possibly, different.
Or, we wake up tomorrow saying “I had a dream….
And some of these spivs will have to get off their shiny fat arses and start reporting politics instead of pimping for “a particular party” - u mean “Unlimited News”?
I’m a rusted on Labor person but I voted everytime for Bob Katter when I lived up north. Like the other two he’s talking that the bush towns are dying fast and my impression is that when he speaks, everyone goes that’s terrible and then puts it out of mind and moves on.
Howard stacked the Regional Development funds management with fib cronies. These regions these independents represent got little despite having elected National Party members into government.
Small wonder they elected these independents rather than Nationals who’ve slept away the last fourteen years. Their voters are rusted on Nats over Labor as a choice but they want and need what Labor is giving.
At last Bob has been gifted some power. None of his statements to date have been ‘gimme’ ones solely aimed at his own electorate (as has the statements of the other independents). We have to help rural Australia thrive or there will ne no young people left.
I like what I see of these independents even if Oakshott was a bit out there. I feel comfortable that even if they side Abbott we won’t lose the reforms we need.
We may get the double dip recession within a couple of months and cutting back everything a la phoney and the fibs want to do is guaranteed to gut spending and progress giving us a recession to last for years as the housing bubble crashes to earth.
They are gambling that they are right and the mining sector will save us.
In all the “erection coverage” I missed it - did “Surreal Tony” “(non-core) promise” “Not to Privatise Treasury”?
Good piece, Guy — the unity government idea put up by Oakeshott highlights the fact that the indies only have power because it is (rightly) assumed that Labor and the coalition will always vote as a bloc along party lines in opposition to each other. The reality is that the combined votes of the two parties, voting in favour of something, is around 143 to 6 in which case the indies have no decisive power at all. So if there were to be a unity government, including representatives of all parties plus indies, the mindless negativism and obstruction would tend to disappear. Sure, many practical problems of ideology, funding and personal egos would have to be addressed but it’s a nice “what if” to think about. Our two-party systemwith its poll-and-focus group-driven “strategies”, its lack of leadership, timid policies and relentless negativism has just about reached its use-by date.
Great article Rundle! Keep up the good work.
And please let’s keep giving it those lazy useless MSM hacks like Shanalamadingdong et al. Let’s do them slowly! ;D
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Good one Guy. And so many of your band of commenter’s smarts have the real philosophical excitement nailed and appreciate the very special and valuable situation that has prevailed.
Shortly after the ‘hung’ state was apparent I said to Crikey ….”the independents are experiencing the real and delicious role of an elected parliamentarian in terms of power (there for any elected parliamentarian if they want it) to do what they are elected to do.”
Each elected member has exactly the same power as the ‘independents’ if they want it.
What they all want is the career opportunities in promotion and selection for example ministerial position etc, which they believe wouldn’t be available if they claimed their rightful power (to vote with complete free will) so real allegiance to the parliament is swapped for allegiance to ‘party’.
If every member took on his power the Prime Minister would allocate responsibilities and jobs on ‘merit’ alone and just the same chance for any one ‘party’ member to be selected remains (unless he knows he is a dope and undeserving).
But guts are needed by one to make the herd follow.
Oh, that’s what a leader is.
Well said, G.R.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
@CHRISTOPHER DUNNE so this could be the evidence that such a brilliant scientist as Richard Dawkins needs to witness so that he gives up his atheist commitment and sees God as real and functioning (and smart).
Good one, I am with you on this.
Oh and I don’t mind pointing out that Grattan’s writing is looking well passed a used by date for absorbing new things, hence its hostility to all things unfamiliar.
Harvey T, if Dawkins ever ‘sees god’ I’ll know he’s been into the mushrooms and lost his capacity for rational thought!
(HINT: clumsy metaphor for political re-invigoration, not endorsing Big Sky Daddy Watchmaker thingy)
Aron, I was just thinking the same today, about her ‘naive’ dismissal of the assembled Magi (plus their new camel boy) at the NPC.
Words of wisdom in this piece, Guy.
However, I haven’t yet recovered from last week’s article when you pointed out the uncanny likeness between Feeney, Arbib, Shorten and the Three Stooges. Since then, whenever reading or hearing their names, I inevitably crack up.
It’s something unpredictable
but in the end it’s right.
I hope you had the time of your life.
Green Day
To me, this whole affair is nothing less than the greatest reality tv show for pollie-nerds ever conceived. The three main characters are brilliant.
Having heard the full version of their chat at the Press Club on Wednesday, I was convinced that they are acting in good faith in the way they are approaching the weighty responsibility of what they are being asked to do. The letters they released publicly confirms that for me further.
Rundle is spot-on in the way he colours the commentators. It was immensely entertaining to see the footage of the Press Club, seeing the looks on their stern faces as they get up out of their chairs to ask their questions, and hearing the tones in their voices.
My favourite part was the method of Bob Katter’s response to Michelle Grattan when he said, ‘now, you may not like it, you know, who’s up here, but you will live with it, you will live with it for the next three years”
The commentators are going to need to tighten their seatbelts!
‘The danger is a politics so deadened that only the most demented and monomaniacal, the Feeneys, Shortens, and Bitars, can stand it, and everyone else retires to their private lives. The more the commentariat shriek in fear, the more interesting the ride. The independents and minor parties should push this process until the rivets are popping.’ Well said Guy spot on. The commentariat deserve to be in a dither - it is their gutlessness that allowed the campaign -designed by the Princes of Darkness - to give us this result. For the first time in a long time the voters have spoken and said something meaningful - ‘we have had enough; stop ‘spinning’ us into meaninglessness; show us what you really mean to do and then do it.’ Bravo I say.
Brilliant article, Guy. Right on the money.