Australia’s political leadership: best influenced by elites or the people?

The key to successful political leadership in a liberal democracy is to bring the people with you, in terms of major policy reform, at least as much as possible given that most policy decisions will adversely affect some Australians.

This is despite past American political scientists arguing that political elites are more likely to exploit the moderately informed who are more willing to adopt new ideas compared to more politically attentive people who are more likely to resist messages. For example, Walter Lippmann in 1922 argued that political elites could 'manufacture consent' by the use of data and information to help inform the public about the need for certain policy decisions.

I have faith that extensive debate can help shape or temper a policy agenda through the role played by public opinion. While there is some concern about the "tyranny of the masses," I believe that a good policy mix can be achieved as long as a society remains well educated and well informed by a variety of media sources. In other words, while US society remains divided on many issues, a reality reflective of its own unique historical development that has resulted in severe and unnecessary social cleavages, Australians have generally supported policies that minimises possible social division.

In general economic terms, recent Australian governments have played a sound leadership role in terms of meeting the demands of the international economy. With the rules of the international economy defined by international agreements, and largely influenced by more powerful nations, Australian governments have adopted policies that have encouraged high levels of economic growth, at least by developed nation standards. While some are still concerned at lower taxation rates for companies and high-income earners and greater labour market deregulation, the wider population has agreed to such policy reform in recent years. Over 80 per cent of Australians still give their primary vote to Labor or the Coalition.

Further, both major parties still give considerable attention to various social-welfare needs to help the most vulnerable (including Aborigines), although there are increasing fiscal difficulties for governments to meet a variety of old and new policy needs.

This is not to suggest that such policy decisions by Australian governments have been perfect. I, for one, have long argued for more public housing. I also believe that the amount paid to the unemployed is ridiculously low.

Recent general policy trends initiated by Australian political leaders have been understandable. I will not lampoon the recent efforts by Australian political leaders over recent decades as a mere example of neo-liberalism with a blind faith in markets. I would argue that it is a bit more complicated than that, and that it is all too easy to criticise government policy in such a competitive world struggling for the right answers.

But, as policy trends occur it remains important that public opinion should continue to have significant influence in these difficult economic times when governments are struggling for answers.

Under the Howard government, there was considerable evidence to indicate how many of its policies were influenced by public opinion. Take the GST which ultimately excluded its impact on basic foods after extensive debate led Labor and the Democrats to use their mandate in the Senate to force change. Further, the Howard government initially cut immigration numbers in response to major public concern, before levels again increased as public opposition waned in response to an improving economy.

Not all measures of public opinion about Australia's democracy are positive. According to a regular ANU publication (Australian Election Study), trust in government has remained poor since the 1970s with over half of those surveyed believing that people in governments looked after themselves.

However, the same publication highlights some more optimistic indicators given an increasing belief that satisfaction about Australian democracy improved from 71 to 86 per cent between 1996 and 2007, although again declining to 72 per cent in 2010.

Even the Howard government's bid from 2004 to introduce more radical industrial relations reform was influenced by public opinion, first through the Coalition's desperate attempt to back-down and then later in its defeat at the 2007 federal election. While most Australians have accepted considerable industrial relations in recent decades, the majority were not prepared for a government to quickly destroy hard won conditions, such as penalty rates and so on.

But this does not mean that taking heed of public opinion always result in perfect policy outcomes. Critics may agree with the earlier view that policy elites may exploit less informed opinion. Critics may argue that the Howard government encouraged wedge politics to divide the nation through its attack on asylum seekers arriving by boat, Aboriginal policy, and even the dramatic expansion of the mutual obligation program.

For myself, however, I would argue that the implementation and development of mutual obligation was sensible, as long as those on social security are assisted in an appropriate way, rather than providing an opportunity for governments to cut budgetary costs. Further, the program was gradually expanded only after overwhelming public support.

Nevertheless, it would indeed be disappointing if a government merely sought to target a minority. This is now one of my prime concerns given that Western governments will face much greater fiscal challenges in coming decades. The growth of Western economies is likely to be complicated by the limitations caused by higher levels of debt or by greater industry protection, which may reduce the purchasing power of consumers.

But I do not know which way the world will go. A more competitive economic environment, guaranteed by an acceptance of ongoing trends, may indeed result in Western societies turning in on themselves with policies increasingly neglecting a more vulnerable minority, although I hope I am wrong.

This is why it is so critical that extensive debate prevails, as boosted by the vital interaction that takes place between political parties, interest groups and public opinion. I do not trust government or policy elites alone. Policy ideas and implementation is nearly always enhanced by extensive public debate.

This brings me to the carbon tax, one issue that best demonstrates the dilemma Western nations face. On the one hand, Labor is taking an immense political risk with the carbon tax, given longstanding majority public opposition after promising prior to the 2010 federal election that no such tax would be introduced. Yet, polls also suggest that most Australians want something done to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions given their belief that humanity is part of the problem.

So what is effective political leadership on global greenhouse emissions? Is it to ignore public opinion as if they are fools? Is it to accept the arguments of supposed policy gurus such as Professor Ross Garnaut, the same man who predicted and urged more mineral exports from Australia to North East Asian societies (such as China), but now demands action to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions?

Or is it just that the public may also be aware of various realities that should also be evident by all in regard to any related policy decision. I reject the view that Australians have somehow been brainwashed by corporate elites or by the Murdoch Press. Contrary to Andrew Bolt's supposed importance, the majority of Australians do still believe that human activity does contribute to global warming. Clearly there are a number of reasons why voters do not like the carbon tax, and their overwhelming resistance to it thus far should not be ignored.

A fact is that global greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase for some time, on the rise of China and India alone, and many voters may know this.

Many Australians may also have less faith towards authoritarian China even telling the truth never mind doing the right thing, despite the latter rightfully committing to now reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions given the filthy air which hangs over its cities. Growing concern by everyday Australians towards China has been evident in recent Lowy Institute polls.

And while many Australians are indeed reluctant to pay higher costs to meet their energy needs, it may also be the case that many voters do not trust Labor to implement such an important policy change after considerable wastage of resources in regard to many programs, such as the Home Insulation Program and Building the Education Revolution.

So when it comes to political leadership, it is a dangerous game to ignore majority public opinion. Such political leadership behaviour may even contribute to dumbing down a nation by encouraging more radical cleavages to emerge rather than trying to build greater consensus by debate. I have spoke to anti-carbon tax protestors and even they agreed that they would be prepared to accept the people's decision from an election vote.

On other issues, Labor has taken heed of public opinion. We see this in the tougher rules for foreigners in terms of home ownership rules, and by recent cuts to immigration numbers after extensive public debate.

But Australia, like most Western nations, will have to make tougher policy decisions, especially if Australia is unable to ride the China benefit forever.

Already there is some evidence that public attitudes do not always necessarily accept the status quo, although public attitudes again have shifted since the global financial crisis. The ANU study found that, of the belief that trade unions have too much power, the figure declined from 62 to 37 per cent between 1996 and 2007 before again rising to 49 per cent in 2010. It had been 82 per cent in 1979.

The view that less tax is needed also fell from 57 to 34 per cent by 2007 (39 per cent in 2010), while those urging more social welfare spending increased from 17 to 47 per cent (34 per cent in 2010).

Even the belief that assistance to Aboriginals had gone too far declined from 55 to 31 per cent between 1996 and 2007 (35 per cent in 2010), while opposition to the transfer of land rights also lessoned from 61 to 36 per cent (35 per cent in 2010).

Other issues subject to changing public attitudes in difficult times may include the age-old debate over industry protection, although any move by governments to find the middle ground may also be influenced by what happens in the more powerful and influential Western democracies of North America and Europe. While governments now appear hell-bent on promoting mining, are Australians going to even allow our world-class agricultural sector to lose out and manufacturing to almost vanish?

In addition, do we really think that a modern Western society can survive on such a reliance on consumption, a development partly funded by rising household debt? Do we really think that Australia can build regional cities and attract people to live there without decent agriculture and even manufacturing sectors?

Do we simply accept the argument that new industries will compensate for losses from old industries, such as our increasing reliance upon the almost barbaric export of live cattle and the growth of international students in Australia? In the case of the latter, there were 469,619 in 2010, but will they come in the future mainly to complete business management or hospitality courses?

There may also be much greater anger about record home unaffordability, which is indeed the biggest cost that any family will face in its lifetime.

Australian governments, like their Western counterparts, should ultimately contribute to extensive and sophisticated debate with their policy proposals, but they should always listen from their interaction with the public in response to various debates. If this vital interaction is downplayed, then our capacity to remain a successful liberal democracy will wane and policy elites themselves may also contribute to the dumbing down of debate.