The politics we deserve

Australia is one of the most over-governed places on earth, with enormous funds going to support the various levels of government. We also boast a highly developed (albeit highly concentrated) mass media claiming to keep us informed, and getting paid plenty for it. Why then is politics in this country so debased and what, if anything, can be done about it?

I’ve just read The Latham Diaries. I wanted to wait until after the hubbub died down, and read the book with a view to discerning any lasting contribution to Australian political culture. After all, it is not often the recently retired leader of a major political party writes such a raw appraisal.

I supported Latham’s rise to ALP leadership. My reasoning was this: Labor was in terminal decline after 1996, and Beazley was simply the undertaker; Labor had to reform, and the only two real candidates for leadership were Lindsay Tanner and Latham. Tanner didn’t want it enough, and so Latham it was.

The events following Latham’s end appear to have confirmed that I was right about Labor, although like most I had no knowledge Latham was so fragile, physically or emotionally. As I write this he’s just escaped a criminal record for bashing up a camera - clearly life after politics is not turning out the way he had hoped. At least he was different; when I met him he displayed intelligence and humour, a rare thing in the modern politician.

The Latham Diaries sees nothing positive in current trends in national politics, or Australian society for that matter. Although we can take or leave his personal account as to who said what, from my perspective every substantive criticism of the process of politics rings true. As he argues, Australian politics is utterly bankrupt, corrupted by factionalism, careerism and a far too cosy relationship with the mass media.

The end result is that the Australian political system neither represents popular opinion (whatever that is) nor does it respond to substantive problems. It is entirely dysfunctional, neither democratic nor providing good governance, while making a great show of doing both.

So what, if anything, can be done about this?

The most obvious problem is the symbiotic - or mutually parasitic - relationship between the political process and the mass media. The media focus on trivia and personality, mostly in a negative way. This promotes careful, soulless people who don’t take risks (like putting forward coherent arguments or acting on principle). When on occasion, policy is announced it suffers the death of a thousand cuts, a victim of ridicule or indifference.

Not that the media is without its own ideological barrows. The way the mainstream commentators took to the neo-liberal (economic rationalist) position in the 1980s is revealing. Of course, their assault on or ignoring of new ideas leaves neo-liberal pragmatism as the only viable option.

The factionalism problem is an extremely difficult one. Such secretive angling for power can only be dealt with by open debate in a context of sustained action towards a collectively agreed-upon goal informed by a relevant and coherent ideology. Fat chance of that happening these days.

Careerism also arises out of an ideological failure. When individuals see no genuine common aim, no open and fair process, they opt for personal success. This then becomes the culture, and those who would seek genuine debate get squeezed out.

The two major parties, supported by our preferential electoral system, oscillate in power. When one stinks too much, the other takes over for a while. Historical differences (which made the conservatives the “business as usual” government, Labor the temporary emergency government) have paled as the exigencies of contemporary political power drive them to look, sound and behave the same.

The Nationals, who still have something like a mass membership, have maintained some sort of connection with their members and thus their constituency. However, the structural changes in the national economy (read: globalisation) has them fatally weakened in coalition, their parliamentarians caving in on issue after issue.

The Democrats, who were specifically devised to mediate between the major parties, made an attempt to ensure input by the general membership, but this eventually failed as the federal leaders made their various grabs for power. The Democrats quickly turned into a rabble, which showed the limits of the Democrats model of accountability.

The Greens have “grass roots politics” as a pillar concept, and consensus as a methodological core. These are nice ideas, and if they work they can promote inclusivity, activism and accountability. They can also give undue power to idiots and the ill-informed, who clog up the process with stupid or self-serving obsessions and drive the doers to distraction. The Greens, now on the rise, have a tricky time ahead dealing with this internal issue.

Ultimately the best protection against media influence is to not have media specialists and to discourage personality cults. The best defence against rampant factionalism is to devalue secrecy through open communications. The best way of devaluing careerism is to promote according to demonstrated ability through fair process.

These things - politics as a collective activity aimed at openly arrived at and accepted goals - directly contravene current political practice. The result is a growing perception among the public that politics itself is corrupt and pointless, which provides further justification for the political opportunists.

This sense of despair of course suits the Liberals, who represent the entrenched structural powers happy to see minimal political activity - they can just get on with doing what they want with little or no oversight. And it does not seem to bother the Labor mechanics either, who are in it for the personal power and the money.

So it is just too bad that appalling Indigenous health, harsh immigration detention, environmental decline, and so on, go unchecked, while a global environmental and energy crisis looms. Maybe we do get the politics we deserve, in which case we are in big trouble indeed.

Mark Latham has come and likely gone as a political figure, but his strange journey shed light on the shadowy contours of our political culture. In his own way, albeit not without a certain amount of self-justification, he tried to tell us what he experienced. We can either take note and demand something better, or we do indeed deserve what is coming to us.