Pearls and Irritations

Peter Dutton has questioned the effectiveness and value of the Teals. I live in Mayo. This has always been a solid Liberal seat. So why was Rebcca Sharkey successful? Although predating the Teals, she has many features in common with them. She had been active in the local branch of the Liberal Party, but her motivation in challenging her former boss was because they “have not had a MP who has actively represented them for years”.  The people in Mayo, in common with many in so-called safe seats, were willing to vote for someone who at least allowed their voices and concerns to be heard. This has been the real achievement of the Teals: they have been able to broaden the political agenda.

The Teals have, either wittingly or unwittingly, tapped into a widespread concern at the way politics has lost its way. For many voters, the democratic process has no bearing on their lives; ever so often we get to vote for candidates who then largely ignore us until it is time for the next election. In many ways, the Teals reflect the reason we have a democracy.

Political philosophers in the 18^th century introduced the world to the social contract, the rights of man and challenged the authority of the aristocracy. Their radical ideas were to shape the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The Americans declared, We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable right, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government. The French people’s more succinct version was simply “liberty, equality and fraternity”. These ideas were the foundation  of 19^th and 20^th century democratic thinking.

The world had high hopes for that latest incarnation of democratic government. The American constitution became the template for many democracies. Nineteenth century European social democrats adopted their versions of the checks and balances embedded in the American constitution. Similarly Australia, when developing its constitution, borrowed elements from Germany, the US and the UK. But the democratic constitutions that emerged were driven by the bourgeoisie. One can speculate that had the US from the outset developed a form of government that was truly based on equality, then the rising middle classes in Europe would not have been as keen to introduce constitutional government. Instead, they followed John Locke’s recommendation that only property owners should be entitled to vote. Constitutional movements throughout the 18^th and 19^th century reflected Locke’s version of the social contract. Consequently, democratic institutions were designed to ensure that democratic government was the means whereby the interests of capital were protected.

The problem for Western democracies has been that the direct influence the owners of capital had over government has been steadily eroded. Every extension of suffrage reduced the influence of the owners of capital. Whereas political parties had been the means whereby the voice of the people could be expressed, they were now the means whereby the owners of capital sought to maintain their influence. The rhetoric has not changed – western democracies still preach “liberty, equality and fraternity”, but these ideals have been filtered through the medium of party politics.

This generated another challenge: how can we justify inequality? Neo-liberal economic theory seemed to develop a solution. In making neo-liberal economics the cornerstone of our institutions, it was argued that thanks to trickle-down economics, everyone would be better off. In practice, it has meant that wealth became concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Thus, in the US in 2011, the 400 wealthiest Americans had more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Piketty (Capital and Ideology) has documented that this pattern of inequality is replicated in all economies, whether they be democratic or totalitarian.

The net result has been the failure “to disperse the ownership of wealth and capital, and thus prevent a small part of society from controlling the economy, and indirectly political life as well”. (John Rawls, Justice as Fairness, p139) To justify the undue influence exercised by a minority of wealthy individuals the idea was fostered that political parties guided by traditional social democratic principles are good economic managers. In Australia, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary the Coalition parties are perceived as better economic managers.

But, of course, that is not enough. The Coalition parties have also promoted social division. We know that all societies are characterised by diversity, but credit must go to a former Liberal candidate who showed the Coalition how to use the diversity to promote fear and discord. Traditionally, politicians and community leaders acted as a bridge across the abyss of ignorance and distrust in diversity; under John Howard and his successors, that bridge has fallen into disrepair. Shortcomings in our society are blamed on people “who are not like us”. The failure of the Voice referendum tapped into that deep fear; the current discussion about admitting refugees from the horrors of Gaza seems likewise to exploit that latent deep fear.

In such an environment the Teals play a critical role. Their contribution has been to focus on that bridge building that has been the hallmark of successful democracies. They have put issues on the political agenda which enable us to strengthen the bridge across our diverse views. The fact that Peter Dutton has chosen to burn that bridge of trust within our diverse communities only underscores that it is the Liberals who have not learnt the reasons for their loss.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT