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

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.