My country, my shame

The overriding question on all these issues is why. Why should Australia act in a way that earns international condemnation? Australia once was a very egalitarian nation. We were among the first to introduce major progressive legislation, such as giving the vote to women, after New Zealand But is it just a facade? Or have we changed? Have we returned to the days of the NSW Rum Corps? Mary Beard, in her fascinating history of Rome tells us that "to understand the ancient Romans it is necessary to know where they believed they came from." We, in Australia came from convict ancestry. Or was The liberal Party a huge Menzies con-man trick? The term "Liberal" as a political description in the English language in other countries usually means a government that "alleviates social ills and protect civil liberties and individual and human rights". Is the Liberal Party, the party of business, ensuring that its business supporters have its direct support? Is there too much money in politics?

Several of the issues raised in this paper, however, are supported by both parties –both of the left and of the right. Are we particularly bad, compared to other countries? Perhaps we are no worse than the others. The United Kingdom has Brexit to ponder over. Brexit was a significant economic setback caused by self-centred voting by a majority of the country. A disaster some observers describe it. The United States has Donald Trump, an example on the same issue. TheUS presents additional ethical issues. Noam Chomsky, voted the world's No 1 public Intellectual, pointed out in a recent book Who Rules the World, that the US determination to dominatethe worldhad caused near continuous wars in country after country since the end of World War II. He finds, on numerous occasions, that this domination has resulted in actions by the US that are of questionable morality. Chomsky blames the American intellectuals, who have been supportive of these policies since President Eisenhower. John Pilger has a similar view, although he is considerably more critical of US actions, particularly in Russia and the Ukraine.

Many other countries have demonstrated ethical weaknesses over history. Japan and Germany for instance. It is sometimes claimed that Angela Merkel's open door policy on refugees is a compensation for Germany's Nazi past . But none of these countries are currently condemned by international organisations of the stature of the United Nations and Amnesty International.

Australia has been so condemned. We do have to ask why? Without doubt, our politicians have been the reason. Do we get the politicians we deserve? Is it our intellectuals? Or our want-to--be intellectuals? Or have we finally turned back to embrace our convict ancestry and the NSW Rum Corps?

This article proposes one theory for your consideration. That our politicians have forgotten how to govern. The have come to believe that they are on opposing football teams .They believe that their job job is to oppose each other, to win a war, not to decide policies that are in the best interests of Australia and its place in the world. Politicians, of course have long divided into the left and the right, ever since the days of the French revolution when supporters of the king sat on the right side of the national assembly and those for the revolution on the left. But Australia has taken it much further. Australia was a great sporting nation. We still believe we are but we are slipping. The politicians are continuing the battles however. Paul Keating's insults, much admired by his followers, was the likely turning point. His description of the Senate as unrepresentative swill will long be remembered. These left-right battles have now descended into farce. The Turnbull decision to reject Kevin Rudd for the position of Secretary General of the United Nations was unbelievably petty minded. Rudd would have made a competent Secretary General. At minimum he might have mitigated the United Nation's criticism of this country. Or convinced us that we should pull our socks up.

Australia's politicians have taken their political football matches even further. The parties have divided among themselves. The Gillard vs Rudd conflict has been repeated recently in the Turnbull vs Abbott battle. The newspapers tell us that "the Prime Minister's rebuke of Mr Abbott drew an audible gasp from MPs in the House of Representatives." In fact the politicians see being elected as a method of waging war, not of governing in the best interests of the people of this country. The Prime Minister has even stated it In a recent video : " The reasons for our party's existence ..is to win and hold government so that we can pursue the policies that allow us to implement our values. Shorten is much the same. He cannot open his mouth without attacking the Liberal Party. Incidentally, Malcolm Turnbull does not spell out what those policies are. We can only guess.

There are ways in which we can elect politicians who represent what the electorates' wish, not as the party factions dictate. Allowing a free vote in Parliament would be a simple way. The Parliamentarian would know that unless he/she votes the way most people in their electorate wants, they will not be elected again. Some form of direct representation for instance, where the representative in parliament votes in response to the views of those who elect him or her, is a more effective alternative. There are no parties. So the eternal battles to win leadership of a party, or to ensure that that the party adopts your position, are no longer necessary. Perhaps we can explore those options. The range of options is not that great. A US blog Student news daily tells us that US students are taught:

Liberals (our Labor party members)believe in …equal opportunity and equality for all. …to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights.

Conservatives (our Liberal party members)believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional (i.e. conservative American) values and a strong national defense.

A number of these concerns overlap. It would not be a difficult issue to express the current issues we face (refugees, same sex marriage, economic inequality, the environment, bio-ethical concerns) in terms with which we can identify and on which our elected representatives can decide in our legislatures.