On Saturday night I went to see The Melbourne Theatre Company’s final showing of Not Quite Out of the Woods, a fairytale walk through the political park. Now I do love me some Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott bouts, and Sarah Palin and the Tea Party fascinate me to no end, but I will be honest: a lot of the content of the show went over my head.
There was some great albeit long-winded stuff about Japanese whaling, Amanda Vanstone and Silvio Berlusconi, but my favourite part was a satirical take on Media Watch and Crikey.com. And all of these characters were played by only four actors!
Now Tessa Keane, the political protégé who propositioned me with this piece (too many p’s?), didn’t attend the show, but the following couldn’t have come at a better time. Here, a summary of the current state of Australian politics. And, boy, is “not quite out of the woods” right!
It looks like the liberal party, under the ever-watchful eye of neo-conservative megalomaniac Tony Abbott, is gaining significant political momentum. And it makes me want to tear my hair out and throw it at someone. In what world could a Bible thumping, hypocritical, snide, arrogant, former Minister for Health under John Howard (when public dental had a seven year wait list) and who doesn’t believe in climate change, possibly be considered a potential leader in this county? Who would choose such a person to become a candidate?
Well, probably no one, but we are not exactly spoiled for choice right now. Julia Gillard usurped someone who was possibly Labour’s most influential—yet somewhat unstable—leader in decades. And what did she replace him with? Our first ever female Prime Minister, who was uniquely positioned to bring about real, meaningful and much needed political change in this country, opted for mild-mannered, middle-of-the-road politics, which are designed to offend no one, which renders them unable to help anyone. Politics in Australia is being reduced to a game; a sport. A sport that’s not even worth watching, except for the many scandals, like the now opposition leader, and staunch Christian hypocrite, being discovered to have a illegitimate love child, whose mother he would not marry, so the child was adopted out, and then tracked him down years later, only to find that Tony was not the father. Or the first openly lesbian labour politician toeing the company line, and voting against the right of gay marriage. Politicians are most exciting nowadays not when they stand on a soapbox, fighting for a cause which can rally people to the streets, but when they get caught eating their own earwax, sniffing other peoples chairs, or most recently, buying ecstasy tablets from a drug dealer on the seedy side of town. (Not technically a MP this time, just a chief of staff, but you can see where I am going with this.)
My point is that politics has become decidedly non-political, and therefore, in the eyes of many of us, meaningless. The answer to every important question asked of a politician is now an accusation against the opposition about the economy, and their tax reforms. Ideology, however misguided, at least attempted to create a bigger picture in which to frame this thing we call the economy, but current politics would not seek to tame the economy and wield it as a tool for the betterment of us all, it would see us become slaves to it, afraid to change, lest the economy gets hurt. Let me assure you, good politics will not harm the economy, but they could stop it from becoming a runaway train. But I am getting off-topic here.
When did election choices become so difficult? Once upon a time political parties represented an ideology which you could stand behind, knowing their decisions would be in line with that ideology. Now it seems we face the choice between being disappointed by the incompetence of the labour party or, being terrified by the radical mania of the liberals. Third party politics has never been more needed, or more elusive. Australians seem tied to the idea that only two major parties are able to represent them, yet neither is adequately representing the will of the majority of Australians. So I will draw to a close this long-winded and somewhat befuddled editorial, with a single request. Demand your political parties engage in politics. If you cannot understand what politicians are saying, or if they are not saying anything at all, then they are not doing their job. Because the job of a politician is to talk to and for you. Demand wherever you can, and most importantly demand at the poll booth, that they talk for you, saying something worthy of you, and of us all. Demand by not being swayed by fear-mongering, and doomsday accusations against the opposition; demand by voting for only people who say something about what they really are, and what they really represent.
—Tessa Keane.
[The Early Bird Catches the Worm] Back to the Draw-ing Board: Australia’s Year of Indecision.
[The Early Bird Catches the Worm] Sisters Are Doing it for Themselves… But Not the Gays.
Hi, interesting piece – do you mind if I use it as the starting place for a piece of commentary from a UK perspective?
It might be fun to have a bit of back and forth…
oops – the link is to the wrong blog – this one may explain how I picked it up.
Hi Oranjepan,
That’s fine; a friend actually wrote the post so send me a link when you’re done and I’ll forward it on to her to see if she wants to respond.
Thanks.
Hi Scarlett,
it turned into a bit of an essay, but there’s a couple of interesting links which I’ve saved too.
http://notyetoutofthewoods.blogspot.com/2011/05/should-ideology-be-dirty-word.html
and reading through it I didn’t quite answer my own question.
I appreciate your insights and I found your article a very interesting read. I actually wrote this piece as an emotional reaction to a politician who I believe is firmly dedicated to a highly conservative neo liberal agenda, gaining traction in Australian politics, in what I see as an insincere play for power in service of only the elites. It is a nostalgic piece, which I suppose naively longs for the days of political optimism, or rather a time where politics had more passion and commitment to an idea, rather than seeking victory for its own sake; if ever such a time did exist.
You asked “What is, after all, ideology? Is it a set of outcomes which one should always strive towards? Or is it a set of principles which should be dogmatically adhered to?” It’s probably both, and neither. Ideology has a great deal to answer for in history, it has been utilised and interpreted in extremely damaging ways, much like religion, and much like religion it has left many of us wondering if it has completely lost its relevance. Yet it also gives language to our moral ambitions, and allows the opportunity to articulate very complex ideas, in simple forms. I also believe that in some ways, by representing the essence of politics as an ideology, it can make politics much more widely accessible, and therefore more transparent and more democratic. I agree that “there really is no ‘one size fits all’ solution,” and I am aware that ideologies, even those that I hold firm onto, such as liberalism, and social democracy, are culturally specific, and not globally, nationally or even locally applicable to all situations and people, but I also know that a simple language, the reduction of politics to a simply set of doctrines by which to make decisions, can give more people the opportunity to participate more widely in politics. People, en mass, cannot be expected to dedicate the same amount of time and energy to politics, as politicians, lobbyist and spin doctors. But ideology can provide a point of access to the activities of these participants, to a wider audience. Many people, I feel, are widely excluded from political discussion currently, because they are not privy to the intent of political actors. Instead they are provided with sound bites, which tell them to fear the economy, or asylum seekers and refuges, or fear terrorism, as is clearly the case with the Osama Bin Laden example you mentioned.
Ideology is very much a double edged sword; it needs to be refreshed, replenished, and participatory, as you say “no ideology can survive on a bookshelf or in a museum, untouchable behind a glass screen.” And it may very well be time to do away with left and right analogy; as the division in creates can and often does have a polarising effect. Yet it was not without its usefulness, we should be thanking France for this, because the ideas that the revolutions birthed have permeated so much of our current existence. Without Marxism, would we have social welfare, healthcare and education such that we have had for the past 50 years in the western world, at least? And without such fervent opposition to Marxism, would we have had such opportunities for democracy? Ideology has the power to move people. Often it has moved them in a bad direction, but in times like ours, some movement is clearly warranted and desperately needed. People as a group, cannot be expected to be political active at a national scale all the time. This is why we need to elect people to represent us. I don’t think it is fair to say “And that’s why it’s not just no good, but decidedly bad when the mythology of self-satisfied occasional choosing at election time begins to be seen as enough.” Because people do make political choices at local levels all the time, when they refuse jury duty, or take minor objects from a work site, or join the army, or refuse to do particular jobs, or steal road signs and paint graffiti, they are exercising political will, in a sphere which is relevant to them. On a national and soon probably global scale, it seems less relevant to many people, even though we know it is important. Ideology can help link feelings about one’s employer or local council and other things of a similar scale, to a larger context. People can exercise their will more coherently when they can have a framework to balance ideas.
This waffle is not intended, as it turns out, to defend the left right paradigm, I agree that the time for new analogies is upon us, particularly as the context in which we must make political decisions has changed greatly and I think in many aspects, we are actually arguing the same point; but I still, probably naively, long for a the times were politics was about passion and participation rather than power. And I still believe that ideology, more than a single person or party, can help people to participate in expression their political will.
wow, thanks for the reply!
there’s lots here which we obviously agree on, but good discussion depends on finding points of difference and there are a couple which I think I’d like to pick out.
Firstly, I agree ideology is important, but I’m also sceptical about some of the ways in which it can be used. In some ways it can open up discussion (such as we trying), but in others (ie by people who don’t share our perspective) it can be used to close discussion down. So while we shouldn’t lose it, I tend not to instigate first use of it in case the other person is of the opposite view.
My point about dutch neutrality was that the ideology became more important than the reality and in the end neutrality lost any meaning as the country was overrun. so if we are to march under banners then we must be able to expand on their meaning and explain how the ideas take shape through use of example.
I think I was trying to argue that ideology should really be implicit in everything we do rather than something totally explicit all the time. We should be able to explain the meaning and relevance of our ideas and for best effect how these look when put into action (for example full sexual equality may lead to gay marriage, though there’s a parenting aspect to be dealt with there too – should we therefore give gay couples extra encouragement to foster and adopt?).
for me the big problem is that our politicians tend to be of one type or the other and rarely manage to combine (in public at least) the practical and theoretical – and those that do don’t do it very well.
But yes, passion and participation: you gotta get involved!
so back to real questions – we have a referendum tomorrow on the AV vote. It looks like that result is already certain, so instead I wanted to ask your view on Australia’s compulsory voting law.
For many of the expats I’ve met over here voting is a matter of national pride and a way to express their Aussie identity, while it obviously has a positive effect on turnout. There has been some talk about introducing it here to counter a fall in turnouts, but strong feelings were expressed in favour of keeping the vote as a privilege rather than a duty and placing the burden on the people rallying for votes to enthuse the public.
Is it possible that politics turning into a sport is partly a consequence of compulsory voting?
The other question I’d like to ask is what do you think are the prospects for a third-party breakthrough, and where do you think it’ll come from? Are any of the smaller parties really government material?