SCOTT BURCHILL. What is going wrong and how did we get here?

Despite the temptations of presentism and intemperate thinking, the forces which have brought us to the current political malaise have been around for some time.

The ideological convergence of the major parties in our two party system has been underway for over four decades. Its most unfortunate consequence is that voters are robbed of meaningful policy choices in key areas which concern them:  the threat of terrorism, national security and defence, surveillance laws, foreign policy, immigration and asylum seekers. This is the serious negative effect of bipartisanship. 

For the Coalition and Labor, effective and innovative political ideas are difficult to develop in an increasingly narrow political spectrum, especially when internal divisions spill over. Product differentiation, even in narrow policy areas, is challenging. Consequently, as the major parties converged, the void in the political spectrum opened up to minor parties and independents  —  an assortment of Greens, localised parties, single issue groups, jingoists and outright racists.

To some extent this constitutes a revolt against the elites and the anachronistic political duopoly that ignores all but the bases and key financial backers of the major parties. There is also profound cynicism about the influence-peddling of lobbyists, foreign and corporate donors and party faction leaders, all veiled by a lack of transparency and the pernicious influence of an increasingly partisan media.

The political process has become so contaminated by vested interests and an obsession with opinion management in the media, there is no long term policy planning or national investment beyond the very short electoral cycle. After learning how the system actually works in their first months, governments waste precious days in office planning for re-election instead of developing policies and making decisions for the future – which may take two or more electoral cycles before they gain public support.

This is a wicked paradox. Bipartisan politics robs voters of meaningful policy choices, however medium to long term planning requires a broad consensus. Add in weak and constantly changing leaders and you get debacles such as the NBN – vital infrastructure and national planning are ruined for short term political opportunism.

Unsurprisingly, votes bleed to minor parties and independents, especially where the proportional voting system favours them. However, the significant and legitimate public anger which leads voters down these dead ends remains unfocussed and is often expressed without any expectation of electoral success for alternative candidates. Phenomena such as Hanson, Trump and Brexit become the locus of frustration and estrangement from “the system”, which is widely and correctly perceived to be stacked against the “ordinary voter”.

Nonetheless, simplistic populism — scapegoating minorities and refugees, a plague on both major parties, sectional interests, protectionism, closing borders, nationalism — provides no answers to the grave problems we face domestically and internationally. It will only deliver pyrrhic victories, though it will continue to thrive when electorates think their political choices are illusory. Jeremy Corbyn’s rise owes as much to his rejection of the neoliberal consensus in the UK as it does to Tory mismanagement and incompetence. There is a lesson here for the ALP, which has too often just lazily waited for the political cycle to turn in its favour instead of undertaking the hard slog of policy development which might take two or three elections before sufficient public support is gained.

Political debates in Australia have become tightly scripted and perfunctory. Spin doctors, media management, opinion polls and focus groups dominate politics. The media is obsessed with the private lives of politicians and enjoys nothing more than a pile on if there is a leadership challenge or a whiff of scandal in the air. Consequently, key issues facing humanity such as climate change, nuclear proliferation and asylum seekers can be effectively banished from mainstream public discourse during an election campaign.

Only slight differences of emphasis in policy get aired, with media coverage increasingly concentrated on leaders and personalities, stunts and gaffes: this is the trivialisation of politics. Newspapers, whose prime responsibility was informing the public and holding politicians to account, have lapsed into openly campaigning for their preferred party – or sometimes their preferred leader for a party. Or obsessing about their taxpayer-funded competitors who enjoy higher levels of credibility and public trust.

The lesson here is not that the political system is broken, but that it was not designed for contemporary realities, and is too difficult to change. The convergence of the major parties in a Westminster two-party system cannot be reconciled with an electorate which demands meaningful policy choices to face the difficult challenges ahead, and desperately needs the long term planning that will be required to meet them.

 Dr Scott Burchill is Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Deakin University.

print

This entry was posted in Media, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to SCOTT BURCHILL. What is going wrong and how did we get here?

  1. John Snow says:

    What an excellent statement of the current state of the political system.

  2. mark elliott says:

    hawke’s political brilliance was to steal the libs policies,re word them and offer them to a very conservative oz. the rest is history.the guts of the article never uses the words that need to be examined in full, if we are to understand the current malaise in oz. sheer greed in the ruling 3 per cent, and sheer stupidity in the remaining 97 per cent. roll on the super union, it is long overdue

  3. Tony Sadgrove says:

    It began in 1936-7 with the Banking Royal Commission. Set up by by the Lyons government, with Menzies as attorney-general (in the pay of the Melbourne business establishment, the Collins House Group, led by Sir Stanforth Ricketson who personally covered all Menzies’ expenses from 1935 on, establishing the corruption that became vital), the report led to the breakup of the UAP coalition in 1941 and put the ALP in government. Menzies & co got to work. They formed the IPA in 1942 to organise the funding of anti-labor movements, and the LP in 1944. Backed by the banks, especially the NAB, they opposed every attempt at banking reform recommended by the RC of 36-7 and even “rigged” the 1949 election to ensure a Menzies win and dominance until Whitlam.

    (there is evidence for all of this)

    Whitlam attempted to reverse the corrupt excesses of Menzies but was overthrown in a coup in 1975. All ALP governments and oppositions since have played the Menzies game just so they can occupy the Treausry benches now and again but they have been well and truly tamed

  4. jfoley says:

    Interesting summation of political l/scape currently. When universities contracted into a value-based user-pays system one of the most important skills that was traded was an ability to ‘see’ and understand the complexities and interconnectivity between different ‘knowledges’ and practices. The ‘choice’ around developing, expressing and ‘delivering’ policy had to be narrowed only in terms of economic considerations. Grads currently have no knowledge base (other than economic) to interrogate, express or even imagine the possibilities of policy. The creative chaos that came from developing skills in imagining possibilities that ultimately leads to interventions and settings that enable, would be seen to day as inefficient, off task, fiction or impossible. RN interviews are reduced to – ‘can we afford this?’, and ‘who will pay?’ . Katherine Murphy on ‘Insiders’ (irony much) describes a vote for a non-major as a vote for insurgents.(?). Policy drawn within this constraint necessarily serves status quo interest. Sanders and Corbyn sit as outliers and msm make the mistake and reduce it to people. Ask any Z or mill to show you what it’s about to them and you enter the world of possibilities, excitement, creative interventions and the intellectual destruction of economic certainty driving current behavioural responses. When this expansion of possibilities meets real world experience who says – we didn’t always do things this way – the result is to expose the contraction that sits at the heart of neo-liberalistic systems. Interesting times ahead.

  5. Rosemary Lynch says:

    The question seems to be how to move from the presidential electoral duopoly party model that so easily lends itself to election time slander and rumour, especially with the lack of help from Murdoch Press, to a seriously argued debate, along with the slam dunk of wage and welfare injustice rampant. The issues are serious, and with a warmongering toddler in the White House, increasingly precarious. So how do we build an intelligent political system again? Maybe even to consider human rights and a commitment to peace again, might be a good starting point.

Comments are closed.