Christian
radical reflections 44,
October 22, 2004 AD
Last time I laid
out in broad terms where this analysis is headed. The immediate goal is to set
forth some important questions about the ongoing political practise of this
country with the goal of encouraging Christian reflection about our
citizenship. To do this we stand in need of a critical historical analysis of
Australia's political system as it has operated over previous decades. I have
also been at pains to emphasise that this must include a self-critical
examination of our own taken-for-granted assumptions about citizenship. These
need to be teased out and carefully examined in order to identify the
convictions basic to Australia's "political spirituality". I argued
elsewhere that it is a particular "political
spirituality" which has occupied the driving seat of our public life
for at least 30 years.
Why 30 years? you
ask. Well, there are a few matters which justify my thirty year timeline. The first
is that this is the period of my own active citizenship. This helps me to
remind myself that this analysis should be formed as political self-criticism.
As well, this recent election saw the demise of the Democrats which came into
existence as a liberal protest against the Liberal Party capitulating to its
Parliamentary Party's complicit endorsement of the Kerr dismissal of the
elected Labor Government in November 1975. Since then the Australian Democrats
have held significant seats in the Senate and have done so with the aim of
"keeping the bastards honest." Now the power they formerly held has
been lost.
As well, there
has been an evident and ongoing "quiet revolution" within the Liberal
Party during that time, increasingly transforming it from a party that sets
forth policies based on a particular liberal outlook which its membership abide
by, to a machine which publishes policies to promote the re-election and
election of its candidates. The once salient influence of Frederick Eggleston
upon the policies of successive Liberal Governments led by John Howard's hero R
G Menzies, has all but evaporated.
The Liberal Party
has formed itself and it's relationship with the Parliaments of this land in
ways that protects itself from public scrutiny and where it is not secretive it
simply avoids genuine public debate. That process has now been with us for over
30 years - it sprang to life when Labor won the election in December 1972, the
first time it's elected candidates had not sat on the Treasury benches since
1949 when Menzies' Liberals had taken over from Chifley's Labor. But by the
time of the May 1974 double dissolution, the parliamentary Liberals in
Opposition, had persuaded themselves to discard their own party's former
standards of Parliamentary conduct and proceeded to block supply which brought
on a double-dissolution. Significantly, it was in May 1974 that the current
Prime Minister began his political career.
John Howard has
cunningly dangled the prospects of his immanent retirement before the people of
Australia ever since his party won the 1996 election. Then, he was keen for us
to understand, he was not going to stay around beyond his 64th
birthday. But for the past 5 years he has kept himself in the driver's seat by
maintaining an impression that he won't be around for too long, as the country
waits for him to go off into this much talked about retirement. It is a
strategy that keeps himself centre-stage in a way that he controls. But in
truth it is another aspect of this politician's inability to stand by his word
once he has given it, particularly since when he gave it he gained a certain
advantage by forestalling any cross-examination that got too close. In
tolerating this kind of silliness the Liberal Party machine turns yet another
corner, having long left its pre-1974 standards well and truly behind. It
becomes a party which tolerates broken promises between it's leader and those
who would like to take over when he has retired. It becomes a party in which
the appearance of unity takes priority, even over any common agreement on policies
and principles. When Howard sets forth his "policy policy" he does so
in a way that is completely consistent with this major tendency in the Liberal
Party machine which is now basic to its structure.
As a result the
Liberal Party of today is but an end-result of an ongoing process in which its
status as a political party has been traded in for an electoral machine
promoting itself - synonymous with its Parliamentary representatives and
endorsed candidates - as the guardian of the national interest. To keep on
doing this, it needs to have within its ranks those who dissent, who still
appeal to the ideals Eggleston and others espoused. But such dissent simply
gives a non-conformist icing to a utilitarian cake. Let us be in no doubt: the
Liberal Party today enshrines its own cumulative tradition that views its
endorsed parliamentary candidates as the recipients of the privilege granted to
them by their Feudal Lord - the Federal parliamentary party's leader. This is
constantly promoted, not only by the Liberal Party, but also by the major media
chains, as the way things simply have to be.
Such a
transformation is only compatible with Eggleston's liberalism if, and only if,
we now read back into his philosophy a basic Machiavellian motif, a covertly
elitist approach to civic affairs. For Eggleston, any Liberal Party, which
takes this essentially neo-feudal orientation to its own self-created,
self-aggrandising elitist ranking upon the political landscape must be an
implicit denial of the party's own raison d'être. It can imply nothing
other than an organised slavery to ideology and demagogy. But what instrument
can be forged to cut the Liberal Party of Australia away from the privileges it
has effectively granted to itself?
As a matter of
fact Eggleston was a distant relative of mine, and it seems that Egglestonian
liberalism exercised a potent spiritual influence upon my father's extended
family network. But these critical observations are not penned out of any
loyalty to Eggleston or the Liberal Party. Over the years I may have learned
respect for the positive aspects of what is now termed "social
liberalism". But what I have written in this series is put forth to help
those caught within the Liberal Party ideology to reconsider their own
commitment to liberalism and to leave it and its spiritual treachery behind.
I would prefer they leave it in order to embrace a Christian radical
perspective not only for politics but for the whole of life. They would thereby
make a contribution, however small, to forming a viable political party based
on Christian radical principles. But at this point, I am also aware that
suggestions about the future of the Liberal Party can help bona fide liberals
caught in the contradictions of their own party. Indeed these observations have
to be made because the Liberal Party is not only a "ball and chain"
to itself and its members but as long as it holds political sway in the
parliaments of the land it restricts genuine free expression of political
conviction by the people of this country.
How then will
this analysis take its positive direction? How can we hold out hope for a
renewal in participatory representative democracy in this country? I formulate
three questions - one for each of the three major players on our political
stage. These are the organised responsible agents who must take a large share
of responsibility for getting us to where we are now. Yes, the complex
political situation that confronts all of us - Government officials, elected
representatives, parties and citizens - requires all citizens to accept their
part in it. But our nation's major parties carry a most significant
responsibility for the current political malaise. Of course if a political
opponent should read this and dispute that there is such a malaise then I would
have to suggest there is little point in reading further.
These questions
illustrate my conviction that over this 30 year period the various efforts that
have been made to address our national political malaise have only driven us
deeper into it. These three questions are an initial attempt to address this
state of affairs. They are questions that seek to contribute to political
self-criticism and a radical redefinition of what it is we are doing, as a
nation, in the various facets of our political life:
Ø To the Liberal Party: What would it take for the Liberal Party to become a genuine political party once more? (CRR 45)
Ø To the Labor Party: How can Labor resume its historical place on our national landscape as a truly progressive political movement? (CRR 46)
Ø To the National Party: How can National break the fetters of its own making and put the national interest ahead of its own status as a compliant supporter of the Governing Liberal Coalition? (CRR 47)
These three
questions are provocative and contentious. They are a formulation of my implicit
criticism of the equally provocative and contentious assumptions that have
dominated the theory and practise of our political life since I came of age as
an adult citizen. As a Christian faced with these three parties, I am not
prepared to ignore God's call to citizenship even if I will concede it is not
always clear how that should come to expression. I want to encourage others to
think likewise about our Christian political vocation as servants of Christ.
Taken together these three questions help us to define the peculiar
"political mindset" that dominates the Government of this country at
federal, state and local levels and which confronts our efforts to develop an
alternative Christian understanding of public justice. This mindset is liberal,
conservative, social democratic and pragmatic. The three parties mentioned
represent three different mixes of these four ideological "streams"
and are evidence of an enduring religious commitment to the humanistic
(Enlightenment) ideology which has shaped this country since the First Fleet,
and was certainly basic to the Federation of 1901.
Now, across the
entire political spectrum, it is as if no politician any longer knows how to
enact any ordinance of self-denial. But John Howard's "policy
policy" is not the only expression of this. His contribution is merely
one expression of the malaise, which is even more tragic because he continues
to act as if there is no problem - no problem with his duplicities, no problem
with his Government's record, no problems with the Liberal party and the
Coalition. It's all a matter of "No worries!" But as we have pointed
out: we continue to be a country beset by deep worries that do not go
away. Howard's recent victory subordinates the governing of this country to an
underlying lack of conviction, a widely accepted deceit that before all else,
and particularly questions of morality, a country first needs to ensure that it
has a "well managed" economy to fall back on. Such "other
matters" can be given consideration once this most important fact is confirmed
by the result of any election.
So a first step
from these three parties would be to address, debate and explain their
underlying agreement and disagreement with the view that demands that politics
is a matter of subordinating morality to economics. It is this viewpoint in
terms of political principle that needs to be developed and debated. The
three questions to the three political parties are set out here to provoke such
discourse within and between these three political associations. They need to
give more careful consideration to how they have together pushed the country
down the path which none of them wants to talk about let alone openly justify.
A final
broadsheet in this series CRR
48 will make some suggestions for how biblically-directed Christian
citizenship might begin to address this malaise.
|
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 published, 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 |