What’s wrong with the two party system?
I wrote recently about the mainstream media narrative
of ‘yes the Liberal government has problems, but they’re no worse than
the previous Labor government’- showing that these journos can’t
possibly criticise Abbott without throwing in the tired old ‘but Labor
was just as bad’ comment, to keep their Labor bashing credentials alive.
Now we have a new play on this theme, which isn’t really a new play for
this blogger as he’s been writing on this topic for some time. Tim
Dunlop has contributed this week
yet another edition of his narrative that the problem is the two party
system – and that the Abbott government is the two party system’s
symptom, not a problem in itself. Here are three recent Drum articles by
Dunlop on similar themes: this one is about the problems with a two party system being unrepresentative of community attitudes, this one is a suggestion that our elected representatives could be chosen by lottery, and
this one is about the community’s preference for independents and minor
parties which is a symptom of a ‘a deeper democratic malaise’.
I’m going to go out on a limb here amongst left wing bloggers and will say to Dunlop, and those that agree with him, what are you
talking about? What if Dunlop and people who share his views are so
obsessed with their idea that our democratic system is ‘broken’ that
they’re purposely looking the other way, rather than seeing all the good
that has come out of our democratic system in the past, and how much
good could still be done?
When Gough Whitlam died this year, there was an outpouring of grief
combined with a celebration for what this leader had achieved in the
very short time he led a Labor government. Correct me if I’m wrong, but
this success happened in a two party system. And what about Prime
Minister Julia Gillard who led a minority government successfully, in a
two party system, so successfully that she was the most productive Prime Minister this country has ever seen.
So this broken system that Dunlop is writing about, this system that no
longer represents the wider community’s values, how was it able to
produce a minority government of such amazing, but admittedly unsung and
largely unappreciated, success?
I’m currently researching political narratives and framing, and I’ve
learned that once a frame is secure in someone’s mind – once it’s a
‘thing’, people find it very hard to see a situation through this frame
in the same way that someone else with a different frame sees it. So I
would argue that Dunlop and I both think we’re equally right and perhaps
we are. But let me at least argue my case as to why Dunlop’s frame
clashes with mine.
Dunlop’s frame is that the previous Labor government, and clearly the
current Liberal government are not interested in representing the wider
community and are only interested in ‘the echo chamber of the concerns
of the broader political class’. Dunlop therefore, having made this
decision, lets this perception of Labor and Liberal politicians run
through every judgement he makes about politics. Major parties are
apparently out of touch. Minors and independents the only true
representative leaders. Apparently minor billionaire Clive Palmer and
his PUP Senators, Motoring Enthusiasts, Family First’s Bob Day and the
now independent Jacqui Lambie amongst them.
My frame, however, is that politics is about good policies and,
equally as important, implementing good policies. My values align with
Labor’s values and a Labor government is therefore the best chance I
have of seeing policies implemented that align with my values. I don’t
just want good ideas from politicians, I want the opportunity to see
these ideas become reality and therefore I will fight for Labor’s
opportunity to do this. This doesn’t mean I agree with everything the
Labor government does. But broadly, I do see their values aligning with
mainstream Australia – at their very heart they aim for sustainable
economic growth, healthcare, education, employment and opportunity for
all Australians no matter what background. I see these values at the
heart of Labor’s policies and for the most part, I am happy to
passionately fight to see Labor achieve policy success with these values
that I know align to mine. So I clearly come at this from a different
view point from Dunlop. Where I see Labor government success, he sees a
problem akin to Tony Abbott.
Dunlop mentions that he sees the two party system as being only
interested in ‘allegiance to the economic system of market liberalism’.
Yet he doesn’t mention what system he would prefer they had allegiance
to. Perhaps this is where Dunlop’s disappointment comes from (and I
would argue that this is not a mainstream malaise). The Liberal Party is
the party of economic rationalists. The Labor Party promises to
civilise capitalism – to try to reduce the inequitable power between
labour and capital. But Labor has never promised to get rid of ‘market
liberalism’ altogether and perhaps anyone who expects that they should
is bound to be disappointed that they won’t. Again, I wonder what Dunlop
would prefer from a government? A denial of globalised capitalism and a
protectionist communist democracy instead? Or maybe he wants a
coalition government of random small and individual factions, who have
to fight out every policy to get a backroom deal done for themselves, at
the expense of the wider community, and at the expense of long term
planning and vision for the country? Maybe he wants a system of
self-interested pork-barrelling, as outlined by Kay Rollison here.
That’s the thing about Dunlop’s anti-the-system commentary; he’s very
good at saying what’s wrong with the way things are now, but never quite
gets to a point where he has a sensible suggestion of what could work
better. And no, I don’t count a ‘lottery’ as a sensible suggestion.
And speaking of a lottery, then we have Dunlop’s preference for minor
parties and independents, who apparently are another symptom of the
problem with the two party system (although this is where I’m confused
as to whether Dunlop sees them as a symptom or part of a solution). I’m
sorry to say this about a blogger I respect, but again Dunlop, what are you
talking about? The most uninformed voters I know choose the most random
of independents and minor parties because it’s trendy. Because it’s hip
to be ‘against the established parties’, to be an ‘anti-politician’.
Not because it’s smart. Not because it’s going to be ultimately
productive for their values into policies agenda. Not because they
actually have any idea what on earth these independents and minors stand
for. How many Family First voters realised Bob Day is on a mission to
destroy the minimum wage? Seriously – poll them and see how few took any
notice of Day’s very well-known values. Or what about another South
Australian Senator, Nick Xenophon, who has just announced that he is
starting a political party. A party based on what values? Xenophon got
elected to the Senate in 2008 on the values of getting his face on TV
through stunts and promising to axe pokies. I have no idea what happened
to his passion for pokies policies because it’s not been mentioned in a
long time. But I wonder how many people who mindlessly voted for him
were aware of the lottery of votes their elected representative would
contribute to in order to help the Liberals get their Direct Action
joke-of-a-policy through the Senate, and more recently to reinstate
Temporary Protection Visas. But that’s the thing about independents and
minor parties – they escape any sort of criticism from people like
Dunlop. Apparently they win the day they get elected, and after that
they have a blank slate to do and say whatever they like – and no one
who votes for them, or publically supports them, ever calls them out.
What about when the Greens blocked Rudd’s ETS. Sorry, I haven’t
forgotten because this is one policy I am extremely passionate about and
I hate the idea of minor parties playing politics with it for their own
electoral purposes, when the fate of our future is at stake. But no,
there’s no criticism from anyone who voted for the people outside of
major parties. No, it’s the major parties that are the problem
apparently. The hardworking, values driven Labor MPs are heaped in with
the conniving Liberals as if they’re all from the same stock. They’re
just as bad as each other.
If Dunlop was clearer about what is was actually advocating in place
of the two party system, I might be able to more clearly define why I
disagree with him. But ultimately, it’s his prerogative to keep writing
on this topic if that’s what he wants to do. And I’ll keep pointing out
that I disagree with him. I believe Tony Abbott is the problem with Tony
Abbott and I’m not interested in people trying to make excuses for this
problem by blaming the two party political system. And I’ll be
fighting, in our two party system, to get rid of him in 2016. Whether
the minors and the independents are interested in supporting this
campaign is also clearly, a lottery.
No comments:
Post a Comment