Christian
radical reflections October
7, 2004
John Howard began
the campaign telling us that the election was about a new vision for
Australia's future. He concludes his campaign asserting that Australia's future
can only be secured if Saturday's vote endorses his economic management. There
is no doubt in his mind that a vote for the "other side" is to risk
the nation's future wellbeing.
The Coalition
campaign has been simple. Howard is the nation's CEO. The election is when the
nation's "shareholders" cast their verdict on his record and that of
his "management team". Saturday's vote is about maintaining corporate
stability of the national enterprise. Only their Board of Management can
guarantee a sound return on our "investment" and "hard
work". Election debate has been about keeping the Government's budget in
surplus - even though, somewhat predictably, this PM has gone around spending
it freely on new programmes designed to win a greater share of shareholder
confidence. It has been about interest rates, maintaining significant tax
relief for the very well off and promising to expand an already complicated
system of rebates to help the less well-off cope with a GST tax system which,
he once told us, we were never ever going to have.
So, how can we,
as citizens, take John Howard's electoral spin seriously? Are we really called
upon to perform a mental trick as we approach the ballot box and consider ourselves
as "shareholders" in the life of the nation?
Howard's cocky
managerialism presents himself to us at the centre of the Australian universe.
He now repeatedly affirms that policies are nothing more than hot air if we
haven't got the economy to implement them. This is the root of his radical
pragmatic pragmatism. He is the one to provide us with the economic foundation
upon which we can build our lives. And that, according to Howard's electoral
rhetoric, is what he means by "the future".
It has to be said
that such a policy framework involves an idolatrous reverence for "the
economy". And therefore if we are to take what he says seriously, we must
ask whether we have any authentic political task left? Howard's
arguments are all about calculating our self-interest, adding up how much money
we will have as a result of our votes - we will then write in our choice on the
ballot paper and then we must accept the result until the next shareholders'
meeting in three-years.
But what if we do
not view our citizenship in terms of such "shareholder"
self-interest? What then? I would not be the first to say that Howard's vision
is a denial of authentic political reality. But because of the political
power of this ideology, those who "deny his denial of politics" very
easily find themselves marginalised. Howard shows himself as one who flees from
authentic political debate. As he comes to the end of a long career he
shows us that the barrel of his political principles is empty. There's nothing
left. The future is, as it ever was, is all about the fulfilment of
self-interest, our own and that of the country. And that is all there is to it.
But despite
marketing himself as the nation's CEO, John Howard is not actually the head of
a corporation at all. In fact he is Prime Minister in the Australian
Parliament. That Parliament may be dominated by a "mind" committed to
corporatising the political process. But that does not make the nation into a
corporation; nor does it mean that the PM is a CEO. In this sense, despite all
the image-making, and all the glossy photos with clipped eyebrows, we may
indeed have to sympathise with a man whose electoral pitch is the argument of
one who is as much a victim of an idolatrous ideology as he is a mouthpiece for
it. Has he not spent his political career trying to reform the "core
business" of Government so that, if possible, "economic
management" would become basic to Government's task of ensuring public
justice?
This is no mere
quibble. It is a serious accusation levelled, not so much at the man himself,
but at his ideology. I openly admit that John Howard's approach to politics
annoys me - despite his "liberal" claims, he shows scant, if any,
respect for alternative understandings of politics and citizenship. If we are
to take his electoral rhetoric seriously, we find that our citizenship has been
defined out of existence! That is the heart of his problem - it is a viewpoint
he is determined to promote and have accepted by this nation.
Within his
managerial ideology our citizenship becomes merely a form of words by which we,
as occasion demands, can add a gloss to our basic economic self-interest. This
is acidic. We do not make any progress in our attempts to confront this
political viewpoint by pretending it doesn't really exist, or that it is
somehow less idolatrous because its proponents occasionally receive communion
kneeling at the altar rail or wave their arms in the air at a Pentecostal
service.
It exists
alright. But to reckon with its influence is to face up to the fact that Howard
has run his campaign as the nation's CEO because he knows that his
anti-political politics appeals to that large minority upon which he has always
pinned his electoral hopes. Yes, I do say that he has lost touch with the
actual political task that now faces this country in a dangerous world. But
then his entire parliamentary career since May 1974 has demonstrated that. And
there is a large sector of our population which also accepts his view.
The task facing
those with an alternative view is daunting but part of the work must involve
the concerted and systematic confrontation and eventual defeat of
this empty pragmatic corporatist image-making. A new political path has to be
found. And then we will need to persuade our fellow citizens to join us on this
path. Defeating this ideology will not be easy. Howard is simply the voice of
that substantial privileged minority of voters who, at Saturday's election,
hope they can deliver victory to him for a fourth term.
But let's face
facts: Howard's view of Government avoids any discussion about, and commitment
to, the demands of public justice. The ideological fixation is acidic because
it is based upon serving powerful self-interests. It aligns Australia with the
"might is right" global militarism of the USA under Bush, and at that
point happily forgets its own relative place within the arena of Australian
public life. We need to be reminded again and again that it is not just if the
national interest is equated with one or other party's self-interest in the
political arena. It is unjust politics plain and simple to rule as if one
party's interests are the endorsed self-interest of the nation. And the
Coalition has shown itself to be a political sect blind to this ideological
danger. It continues on in its ruthless commitment to marginalizing political
viewpoints that are incompatible with its managerialism and it's self-serving
style of corporatist public administration. As such it has just about lost any
view of this nation's distinctive integrity, even as it markets itself as the
upholder of the nation's self-interest in the global economy.
And so a question
arises: Can the Liberal Party return to liberal principles to be an authentic
party once more? What will the impact be upon the Liberal Party should Howard's
radical pragmatism be endorsed one more time? This question, now so central to
our nation's future, has not been addressed in the campaign and the reason is
simple: the Coalition electoral machine has successfully promoted the myth that
Saturday's election should be seen as a shareholders' ballot. So if it wins,
the Coalition wins with an anti-political politics and such a victory will
continue the ongoing embarrassment which its supporters have had to wear for
the last two terms. It is hard to see how the Liberal Party can ever be
restored to the status of genuine democratic political party, at least in terms
consistent with its own liberal profession. This election has certainly
confirmed that Treasurer Costello, Howard's deputy, shares this
"shareholder" ideology. If he has reservations he lacks the political
courage to voice them.
With few
exceptions, John Howard and his "team" have avoided any semblance of
political education during this campaign. Instead, mincing his way around the
country at tax-payer's expense, Howard has succeeded in avoiding
debate by acting out his role as ring master of the election circus. It seems
there are no votes to be gained from advocating the reform of the electoral
system to ensure that all citizens can freely contribute to this nation's
political life. Political parties should be taking a lead in this vital part of
our civic life, but this "CEO" has not demonstrated any capacity for
promoting political education, let alone authentic political reform.
Australia is not
a business even if its Government is driven by the well-attested craven desire
of leading politicians to placate the demands of rich and powerful friends
abroad and at home. Still, we are called to pray for Government despite this
serious malformation. As we do so we ask the Almighty to be gracious and free
us from the idolatrous motifs that have taken hold in our national life, public
and private. Those who claim to follow Jesus Christ, will also seek to bring
good news to the political arena, but at this time in Australia we surely need
to discover our own exit strategy from the disastrous idolatry of
self-interested politics. Our task remains "until He comes with glory to
judge" and it requires that we find a way, whatever the result may be from
this election. We confess that God Himself calls us to be busy in the humble
work of citizenship. So let's continue to work at this, to shun hubris, to help
each other avoid the idolatry of self-interest, and instead develop a just view
of political life for the service of all of our neighbours. Let's work so that
public justice can rightly be seen as the holy calling of Government and
citizens coram deo. Fleeing pragmatism and all ideologies of
self-interest let us work to respect those who contribute to our political life
and encourage all to do so. This, as a matter of fact, is what the Lord
requires: "the doing of justice, the loving of kindness and the humble
walking with your God."
October 2004 © Christian
Radical Reflections, is 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 personal project aims to
encourage positive Christian citizenship, the development of policies and
political attitudes that better express our love for God and our
neighbour. Your comments are welcome. Email can be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bcwearne/index.html