Skip to main content

Is it too late to save the political process?

Who is asking the question? None other than Barry Jones - former Labor federal minister - in giving the eighth Manning Clark Lecture, delivered at the National Library tonight. The Age has published an extract:

"In the 1980s ideology largely dropped out of Australian politics. Politics now offers a choice of management teams, and styles, and elections are about personalities and credentialism. Historically there has never been a time when incumbency has counted for so much, and oppositions for so little. The "majoritarian" view ("Well, we won, didn't we?") is based on a winner-take-all philosophy, an assertion that an elected government can claim a mandate for anything it wants - present or future, including retrospective justification, including issues that were not specifically put before the electorate, such as invading Iraq in 2003.

In this analysis, John Howard is an anomaly - he has a hard-line political, ideological agenda, including overturning what remains of the Whitlam agenda, winning the culture wars and reversing multiculturalism. He takes on unpopular issues (the GST, Telstra, Work Choices, Iraq) and - so far - he always wins.

Ideology has largely dropped out of politics, to be replaced by convergence. Oppositions have generally ceased to oppose, or propose an alternative basis for policy, and the concept that "there is no alternative" has been broadly accepted. Parliament has lost much of its moral authority and the public service has adopted the cult of managerialism and been increasingly partisan, committed to promoting the government 'line'."

One can be forgiven for being cynical about the whole political process. Jones seems to think that there is still some hope. Although it doesn't look all that hopeful unless there is significant application to the task, let's keep our fingers crossed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...