Part of the debacle in the Democrats is that the control of the party has
fallen to people who support a leader who is not supported by the majority
of Democrat representatives. It was also part of the Liberal debacle in
Tasmania. The Tasmanian Liberal Party would have won at least one more seat
if Greg Barns had not been disendorsed. (I can be 99 per cent certain of this
because of the way that the Hare Clarke system works, and correspondence can
be entered into on this point). Barns would have stayed as the candidate,
except that those who controlled the whole party (as opposed to his
preselection council) didn’t want him. In Queensland those controlling the
state organisation supported Clayfield MP and factional warlord Santo
Santoro for Leader while he was an MP, and would do anything to advance this position,
including undermining the elected parliamentary leader. This is part of the
reason for their opposition to Quinn now.
This diminished base interacts with the third theme – the effect of
consumerism on political choice. This is a little esoteric, but bear with
me. Fifty years ago we all pretty much took what we were given. Children ate
their dinners not so much to save the starving in Ethiopia but because that
is what you did. We all went to church, and normally the same one as our
parents, because that is what you did. Restaurants served much the same
food, because that is what they did. Nowadays we run menus for meals cooked
at home because the kids think nothing of sending ones they don’t like
back. If we go to church it is as likely as not because we like the type of
performance they put on, and we’ll change denomination at the swish of a
surplice. In fact we may well regard eating out as a spiritual experience.
As a result of this surfeit of choice, we are coming to believe that we
have the right to have whatever we want whenever we want it – that we have
complete control over our environment. The idea of compromise is just a
little old-fashioned. Yet compromise is the essence of politics. So, if our
political leaders don’t give us exactly what we want (and they can’t,
whatever they promise), we want to change them, not later, but immediately.
In the Democrats’ case that means ditching Meg Lees. In the Liberals case
that means ditching, Peter Collins, Kerry Chikarovski, Dennis Napthine, and
possibly Bob Quinn, because we can and because they are not doing exactly
what we want.
Advertisement
This attitude leads to distrust. The old-fashioned bargain with
politicians that most political party members used to make was that we would
trust their judgement to do the right thing and only judge them once a term
at their preselection. The new-fashioned bargain is that we want them to be
continuously accountable to us all the time. The Democrats have this
enshrined in their constitution – the membership is so controlling that it
requires elected representatives to invariably conform to organisationally
determined policies. Labor only pays lip-service to this – it has gotten
over its control-fixation, although it does expel members who vote against
caucus decisions. While the Liberals have less opportunity for control
during parliamentary terms, they are enforcing their wills via extremely
active stacking of branches of even their most successful members.
In an interesting inversion of this trend, One Nation was set-up so that
Pauline Hanson would have complete control over policy. One Nation MPs had a
constituency of one to please.
The final common theme is that politics, particularly at the branch
level, has come to be dominated by people who have a very narrow focus and
who are disconnected from the electorate. When parties are dominated by
people who can be transported from where they live to somewhere else just to
help someone win a preselection they are repellant to the people who join
most organisations. Parents organisations at schools, scouts, Meals on
Wheels, the RSLs and the churches, to mention just a few community
organisations, are still full of people who do it for the love of it. They
may, and do, play politics at some levels, but they all share a common
connection to a community and a common purpose which tend to overwhelm
personality differences in the end. The intersection between these people
and branch membership is now very much less than it used to be. Political
parties are becoming more and more like commercial concerns where you apply
for a job rather than taking out membership. This increases the jostling for
position, decreases the satisfaction that is given to electors, and
therefore increases the tendency of electors to disconnect and to shop
around.
As a result independents are becoming more common, and political parties
less secure in their existence and more prone to fracture. Stott Despoja
describes the Democrats, a party which has been in existence for 25 years,
as a "young" party. It seems that they are showing their
"older" colleagues the way into decrepitude. Perhaps in the
future, 25 years will be a very old age for any political party.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.