George Bush's Iraq War

and Australia's Search for an Authentic Parliamentary Opposition

So now (June 4^th, 2004) John Howard has allowed the American President to call the shots in his own campaign to retain the Treasury benches. If GWB has his way there will be no régime change in Canberra at the end of the year. Now that he is in the USA, will the Australian PM be also seeking to eke out a similar slam in the direction of Mark Latham's "home by Christmas" policy from Senator John Kerry?

The real problem for Australia is with what is going to happen after the election. There has been a discernible erosion of Australian honour in its own eyes since the Howard régime took office in 1996. Some explain the embarrassment in terms of the craven compliance of this Government to the USA. Many feel that If Howard's Liberal-National Coalition wins yet again there will be even stronger political forces unleashed that would entrench the nation in its ongoing denial of the legal, regional and international embarrassments that have characterized Howard's Government. He and his ministers try to find a foxhole of protection for themselves in our historical friendship with the USA. It wears thin. And George Bush's words indicate he has no appreciation for how thin it is.

But in this election many are wanting Labor to tell the country how it will propose to maintain a coherent policy in Opposition should the Howard Government be returned. In my view Labor would certainly be acting in the national interest were it to do so. It would prepare the way for loyal dissent and give room to other considered views out on the hustings at election time. It would promote mature and open debate and require all sides to be open and forthright about how their policies will maintain this country's system of accountable and democratic representation.

The American President gave gratuitous support to the Australian Federal Government's Iraq policy, and in so doing he did not just criticise Mark Latham's "home by Christian 2004" promise. He gave a solid slap across the chops to all conscientious opposition to the war in this country. Such dissenters are not supporters of terrorism. The Australian PM may think these comments will help his re-election prospects and they might. Howard may not see any need to defend loyal dissent, especially if George Bush wants to imply that such opinions give solace to terrorists. But in the national interest Labor needs to force the Liberal-National Coalition to come clean on the policies that would guide it should they lose Government and become the Parliamentary Opposition! Labor should not be spooked by GWB's support for Howard's re-election. Instead they should be following through on this matter, and when Howard and his ministers try to avoid it, they should just keep on plugging away: What is Coalition policy for Australia's involvement in Iraq if Kerry wins and Labor wins. Spell it out please! Spell it out. The country needs to know what kind of alternative Opposition you are proposing. And what happens if Bush regains the Presidency and Labor wins here? How should we expect the new Opposition to conduct itself? Is it going to be 1974 and 1975 all over again?

Howard is not averse to pompously posturing with respect to Iraqi self-government. Well then, what kind of Parliamentary Opposition will we see if his own party loses after this attempt to conscript the American President for the campaign? It is all so very consistent with the post-1974 Liberal Party "win at all costs" mentality. In fact Howard typifies this view. It is a big weakness that he continues to drive into the heart of Australian politics, and maybe to the heart of our constitution itself. There is a sense in which his political approach requires him to avoid the question of the principles his party holds with respect to being Opposition.

In Australian politics - federal, state and local - those who turn their backs on their principles have a peculiar staying power. Prime Ministers and Premiers who make their mark in this way, seem to stay around much longer than those who try to keep their policies in line. John Howard is indeed very successful at pragmatic politics. Having won a seat in May 1974 (after a double dissolution caused by his own party's reneging on the right of elected governments to govern), he has become an important part of the evolution of the Australian system of Government. We now stand on the brink of a political culture which grants highest rewards to those who most effectively ignore their own principles. As a result, the nation suffers from parties that promote the pragmatic politics of the power-hungry. As a nation, we have become deeply uncertain about the role of a Parliamentary Opposition in the nation's life, having lost touch with important aspects of our own political tradition. The next election will be a good time to start to turn that uncertainty around.

Bruce Wearne, former academic, who now lives at Point Lonsdale, Victoria bcwearne@ozemail.com.au Friday, June 4, 2004

June 2004 © Christian Radical Reflections, written by Bruce C Wearne (PhD), 29 Lawrence Rd., Point Lonsdale Vic 3225 AUSTRALIA, 61-3-5258-3913. Each edition may be photocopied or retransmitted in its entirety but not otherwise reprinted or transmitted without permission. This project aims to encourage positive Christian citizenship, the development of policies and political attitudes that better express our love for God and our neighbour. Comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au . http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html