Capitalising on 'me-tooism'

The dominant word emerging from the last election was that stupid term “me-tooism”. As much as I despise that so-called word as a descriptor it does help, albeit rather clumsily, to bring into focus the phenomenon of political convergence that has become such a feature of our political landscape.

Recognising this phenomenon and how best to capitalise on it should be one focus of Prime Minster Rudd’s vision for 2020. There are countless policy fronts that could be exploited by this convergence and give rise to a more constructive form of participative and consensual democracy.

In 2001, here, in the pages of On Line Opinion, Ted Mack described what he saw as a dysfunctional system of government. He described our current system thus:

The winner take all, two-party system that has caused a political convergence of policies (the Tweedledum and Tweedledee syndrome) and a mutual interest in preserving a self-serving duopoly often leave the public powerless and frustrated.

While ever “representative government” restricts public political participation to a manipulated vote every two or three years and remains largely self-regulating, public disillusionment and frustration with government will continue.

He felt political convergence as a negative result of political expediency. And it is, but that need not be the case. I rather see it having the potential to move us forward to wards a more consensual and participative form of government.

In many respects Mack was right however. While the well worn, and I would hazard to say well worn out, adversarial approach in Australian politics has served us reasonably well, it has left us left with a legacy of poorly developed policies from both parties. These policies, have by and large, been drafted to see those in power or those aspiring to be in power into the next electoral cycle. Policies have been developed to win the argument on the day more than they have been designed to advance the national interest.

Winning is the focus. Securing control of the treasury is the goal. Mining the middle ground is the method. And given the lack of genuine division within the electorate and the major parties on the vast majority of national aspirations, we are offered very bland, and essentially common, policy options. What is presented to the public is usually a bastardised position born out of endless bickering.

When you examine the policy positions of the major parties, little of substance separates them. Accordingly, would it not be a better use of political energy to focus our attention on the common ground and strive for a form of long-term consensus?

Political party adherents will go to great pains to highlight points of difference between the two major parties; but in so many instances they are really only fooling themselves. This was no more self evident than in the run up to the last election. The parties ran parallel campaigns largely mimicking each other with the exception of some minor variations to the same promissory themes. The commentariat called it “meetooism”. But whichever way you cut it, it looks more like consensus to me.

Rudd and the Labor Party were accused of lacking ideas because much of what they put to the public resembled the position of the Coalition. The glaringly obvious fact that nobody seemed to notice was that the common ground occupied by both parties simply reflects a very broad political and social consensus within Australia. If we largely agree on most matters it is hardly surprising that the leaders will stand up and indeed say “me too”.

The most recent federal election was fought on a narrow band of policy fronts. Industrial Relations law was the marquee issue. Rudd and Gillard, as did Beazley before them, vowed to “tear up these laws”. Some of the detail of the new regulations has been revealed in the first days of this parliament. It should be noted though both Gillard and Rudd have gone to great pains to placate a few of the industrial heavy weights who had embraced WorkChoices. I suspect we will not see any genuine tearing up of anything, rather we can expect a compromise and a good deal of pragmatism being exercised by a party very keen to see out at least two terms.

The environment got a fair hearing as well. Eventually the Coalition fell in line and decided to believe the science. The leader of the Opposition in waiting, Malcolm Turnbull, even urged his cabinet colleagues in government to sign the Kyoto Protocol. How stupid is a system that has the Minister for the Environment in concert with his opposition spokesman but unable to engage in a reasoned discussion with him about the best way forward?

Health care took up a fair amount of column inches and airtime but at the end of the day all we got was a further commitment to the principles of Medicare. It is has long been rusted on policy position in both camps in recognition of its popular appeal.

When it comes to health we did get the threat from Rudd that unless the states cleaned up their act he would move to bring hospital management back to the commonwealth. That position did excite a few commentators but in principle it is consistent with the progressive centralisation of control to which the then government aspired. They certainly wanted to wrest the control of hospitals and health services from the states; they merely lacked a plan and the will, at the time, to do so.

The Coalition flattered itself on its economic credentials. John Howard together with Peter Costello led an economically conservative government. Kevin Rudd too is an avowed economic conservative. He is committed to budget surpluses. In fact from a Labor point of view budget surpluses seem mandatory at a federal level and indeed in all the states.

In spite of the assertions that both leaders are economic conservatives both major parties were keen to give armfuls of money back to the electorate rather than engage in infrastructure spending. Spot the difference if you can.

But also spot the error. Many economists will tell you we missed out on a golden opportunity to re-invest in national infrastructure. But both parties keener on forming government than nation building promised to give us tax cuts knowing full well they were inflationary and soon to be eaten up with rising mortgage rates and fuel prices. This flawed policy position is a direct result of the avarice described by Ted Mack back in 2001.

Errors like that are destined to continue unless we seek real political change.

While refugees and immigration were glossed over in the election campaign it was harmony that reigned over both camps. Neither party wanted to frighten the horses on immigration this time around. The Labor party even supported the introduction of the cosmetic citizenship test. Years before the current paranoia about immigrants infected the community it was Labor that brought in mandatory detention. Even though the coalition turned the management of this process into and art form there is no real talk of dismantling the policy.

Education was a big-ticket item for both parties. Rudd touted a revolution and quoted very many chapters to it. Both parties want better standards as does the community but little if anything really sets them apart. In fact the only policy divergence of substance on the education front was during the Whitlam years. It was his policies that saw many of the incumbents in Parliament benefit from free tertiary education. No such luck for their children.

That largesse changed. But it was a Labor Government that brought in the changes. They introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. The coalition has merely gilded that particular lily. Even though the costs of higher education are spiralling it is unlikely that there will be any real change to the underlying principles about funding higher education.

Some might say defence represents a marked point of difference. But the Labor party will maintain a presence in Afghanistan. They will also continue to play a role in Timor and the Pacific nations if required. Both parties are committed to the alliance with the American’s on most things military.

Sure, Labor will get out of Iraq, in part at least, but our presence there was at best tokenistic. Just as our presence there was merely symbolic so too will be our partial withdrawal from that war zone. Labor party adherents will again use it as a sign of political differentiation but in reality it is a sign of how insignificant our role really was. To be really different you need to be different on something that really matters.

And most recently we had the National apology to the Indigenous population. The Leader of the Opposition Dr Nelson, it seems, largely agreed with the position of the Rudd Government. And so it seems did many of his colleagues in Parliament today along with former Senator Fred Chaney and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. Still, with a generous dose of bi-partisanship backing him, Nelson felt compelled by the irresistible forces that seem to possess oppositions to deliver an unnecessary and largely irrelevant and different take on the matter of our past treatment of Aborigines.

It was inconsistent with the spirit of the occasion but highly consistent with the spirit of opposition for its own sake. Strategically it won him no friends. Further it will serve to weaken his credibility at the table when he meets with Rudd to thrash out a bi-partisan way forward. Yet he will still be at the table.

Our political duopoly is likely to persist delivering poor quality outcomes for some time to come unless there is some form of circuit breaker applied to the system. The emergence of a few Independents has been touted as a possible solution. Yet there is no indication that any of the minor parties will make substantive in roads into the political landscape any time soon.

And what if they do? It could be argued we run the risk of rendering a rather dysfunctional system more so. A hostile Senate manipulated by a few lucky independents has little to recommend it. Or worse still we could end up with a lower house run by cobbled-together coalitions forming and reforming like partners on a square dance floor.

In spite of their protestations the parties agree on so much in principle. Why not exploit that fact and harness the energy wasted on bickering about the detail? Invest that energy in developing long term bi-partisan policies on health, education, the environment and defence, for example.

Some may say it is simplistic for me to say that our common national objectives can be described as a desire for better health, better education, a better environment and a sound system of defence to protect our national interest, to list just a few. I am sure the more pedantic political animals reading this are chortling away at my naiveté. They might be right. But what’s wrong with simple?

With that in mind what is wrong with using the time we have to ask our leaders to give serious thought to moving towards a more consensual and participative way in which to achieve those aspirations? Kevin Rudd’s’ meeting of the minds is the perfect occasion to rethink our government processes. As a nation we have nothing to lose.

Unless you subscribe to some doomsday theory we have plenty of is time. Why don’t we use some of it to look for a better way of governing our selves that really reflects the will of the people and not merely that of the politicians?