Political duty versus party unity

Maiden is aware of this commitment and does not suppose, as more critical colleagues do, that every setback further confirms Turnbull is not worthy or qualified to lead a major party. She does not assume he need only walk into the party room and remind members of his intelligence, achievements and charisma, to attract conservative support.

There is, however, a sense that, even allowing for this democratic approach, the Prime Minister has been found wanting. He has made hasty decisions, some of which are difficult to reconcile with his image as a progressive leader who believes in a 'high wage, first world, social welfare economy'. He should, critics say, stick to his guns and, if need be, throw down the gauntlet to the right wing. He could and should have done this after defeating Abbott, well before the election.

At the heart of this criticism is a concern over the depth of his commitment to the progressive values he stands for - a diffidence or readiness to compromise which, on a larger scale, helps to explain the general disaffection with politics. To find this weakness in such a progressive Liberal is a bitter pill for supporters, who in the early days ranged across the political spectrum.

This is, nevertheless, a good time to ask why members should not cross the floor if their judgment and conscience tells them the plebiscite is a waste of public money. Why should members toe a party line they believe is wrong and which is widely seen as a compromise to appease a conservative faction?

The Liberal party argues, with reason, that it is more enlightened than Labor, because members cannot be disciplined for crossing the floor when the party refuses a 'conscience' vote. Party leaders and senior members, including former minister Amanda Vanstone of the ABC's Counterpoint program, often point to this difference between their philosophy and Labor's refusal to tolerate dissension.

Although the matter is not yet settled, many commentators say the plebiscite is dead in the water since Labor, the Greens, Nick Xenophon and other Independents oppose it. In the meantime there is a need to re-examine the doctrine of unity. The question is why elected members, whose salaries, offices and perks are funded by the public, should owe a higher duty to the party than the community whose interests they represent and whose values they claim to share.

The media, by and large, ignores this question - rather than discuss the merits of the doctrine it condemns members for acting against their judgment and conscience and, almost in the next breath, reminds them that disunity is death.

This may, over time, change, but not until critics, journalists and political theorists are ready to challenge this self-serving theory of political duty.