Governments sustain power by repeating stories about themselves. In Australia’s federal parliament, a narrow political consensus – marked by conformity, cruelty and evasion – is weakening democratic debate and eroding the principles of human rights and international law.

Governments bolster their identity by repeating stories about themselves, by making claims which they want backbenchers to follow and voters to believe.

A government preoccupied with party discipline likes to exercise control, expects conformity, and even in a democracy finds it difficult to tolerate dissent. In the case of the federal Labor government, the result of this way of thinking and governing is a consensus story which is narrow, confused, devoid of imagination or kindness. It is also stifling and cruel.

This consensus narrative begins with Australia’s response to the Israel/US war with Iran. The Prime Minister, ready to believe whatever Netanyahu or Trump said, rushed to proclaim that Australia would support anything those bullies decided to do. Besides, for years, through collusion in a genocide in Gaza he and his government had shown themselves loyal allies of Israel and the US.

When the US President vented his pulpit rage about evil Iran attacking civilisation, voices in the Labor government might have asked, what did the US President mean by evil? What is his version of civilisation ?

Conformity with the US does not allow such questions. At which point – just as civilised Israel had murdered over one hundred Iranian schoolgirls – Trump reappeared and like an unstable patient who attributes to others what he fears about himself, he tells the world that the Iranian regime was “sick and sinister”.

Displays of cruelty in order to appear strong have added to the consensus, even in a political party which mutters mateship and, in the case of the Prime Minister, wants to encourage kindness by turning down the political temperature.  But that quality – kindness – needs exceptions, in particular concerning the women and their children marooned in the Syrian al-Roj camp whose desire to return to Australia was rejected by the Prime Minister because he recalled his mother’s advice, “if  you make your bed you lie in it.”

Consenus narrative demands that people who tell stories about making beds must pose as though they had never made a mistake in their lives.  In the culture of an allegedly strong government, no-one should appear to be weak by giving in to powerless women and children, let alone sound as though they might have consulted the visionary Archbishop Tutu’s philosophy, ’no future without forgiveness."

The fascination with cruelty as a means of appearing strong is fomented by opposition leader Angus Taylor and his Shadow Minister for Home Affairs standing together snarling that they will make it a criminal offence for anyone who helps these women to return home.

Consensus means being as cruel as possible in order to appear kind ?

Somewhat paradoxically, this narrative is managed not by outspokenness but by evasion. Not everyone in the major parties is evasive but for the most part, letters to government politicians are answered only by a meaningless robot-like reply and telephone calls go to a message bank. For years, genocide has been a taboo word, even as news readers gave nightly apologies for pictures of slaughtered children. Consensus – ‘don’t mention genocide’ – demanded loyalty to an ally even if its leaders had been judged war criminals.

Evasion is aided by pleas for social cohesion, that genius anaesthetic for putting possible dissenters to sleep. As part of his social cohesion package, the Prime Minister introduced  his _Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act_. To follow suit, because he found it reassuring to join a political consensus, and authoritarianism came naturally, the Labor Premier in NSW supported cohesion by introducing more anti-protest laws.

Identity in a consensus view is strengthened by having enemies whom major opinion-makers say are not really Australians. Mainstream media would have you believe that being middle of the road, and standing for as little as possible, lowers the political temperature. Them against us is easily explained.

To a cruel history of social policies based on distinctions between the worthy and the unworthy can be added new enemies – extremists, alleged anti-Semites, suspected Islamists, protesters for environmental protection and even campaigners for social housing – don’t call it socialism – who criticise the age-old policy that freedom requires that housing remain an investment vehicle for wealthy Australians. Massive inequalities remain part of consensus?

Confidence in a go-it-alone view about governing means casting aside respect for the principles of international law, even as a government proclaims it is an international citizen. No-one should remember signing up to the principles of the Genocide Convention, or adhering to the rulings of the International Court of Justice.

In the federal parliament, the thoughtless, quick support for the Israel/US bombing of Iran, was judged illegal not by government members but by a principled Greens Senator, David Shoebridge, a parliamentary irritant for honouring democracy by breaking the consensus.

Failure to identify the illegality of the Iran war had become inevitable given cues from the Trump presidency that both the UN and international humanitarian law had passed their use by date. Loyal ally Australia should stay on board.

Apart from stifling dissent and allowing cruelty, the consensus narrative encourages selfishness. It says, retreat to a down under corral. MAGA style, it’s wise to protect only your own interests. In pursuit of power, better to be greedy, and don’t admit to being racist.

The alternative to a narrow, stifling consensus still lies in the post-World War II ideals that economic and social policy should favour altruism over egoism, and in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. The Refugee Convention and the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court likewise affirm that all peoples are united by common bonds and a shared heritage.

In total contrast to that language and those ideals, the present fearful, debilitating consensus in the Australian federal parliament (there are courageous exceptions) presents the notion that loyalty to Israel and the US is imperative, that being cruel is a sign of strength and that it’s wise to regret but not resist the breakdown of a world order preciously concerned to foster civility and humanity.

Major political, social and economic forces have encouraged a consensus fed on swagger and repetition.

By contrast, a generous democracy still requires a human rights based, imaginative, questioning story which would enhance the lives of everyone including a Prime Minister and members of his government.