Elitism was the downfall of the Keating Government. In 1996 that Government was seen as unaccountable; as knowing what was best; as ignoring the views of “ordinary” Australians, whoever they might be.
It was a fair call. In our democracy, the views of the “ordinary” Australians – the voters – are paramount. For Paul Keating and some of his ministers to say, “Look, we really know what is best for you, don’t worry about what you think, trust us,” is condescending. It is an open invitation for voters to say, “Thank heavens we get a chance to vote you lot out of office before you go one step further and say, ‘Trust us, there is no need for any more free voting’.”
Keating used executive power. He spent large amounts of taxpayers’ money to notionally inform people about Commonwealth programs, but really to propagandise about “wonderful” things his government was doing which warranted their voting for him. The voters thought otherwise.
The Keating experience shows that the arrogance of power and the sheer elitism of presuming to know what is best for a country are the ingredients of the loss of that power. It is almost like a law of physics.
John Howard is so much like Paul Keating.
This week we learnt that the intelligence community told the Government before the war that an invasion of Iraq would make Australia and Australian interests overseas more (not less) likely to suffer terrorist attacks.
Howard did not think that that information should be shared at the time with the Australian people – those who were directly affected by it.
On Iraq Howard has presumed all along to know what is best for the Australian people. There was no need to explain or argue his presumption to the people or consult or get permission from their representatives in the Parliament about going to war in Iraq. His presumption has been that the American alliance is the most important part of Australia’s security and it must be nurtured whatever the other costs.
In the long term he might be right. But if that is the case why not argue it that way publicly before committing us? Why put up all these other sham reasons.
Howard said when Keating was in office: Australians are not fools. They will not cop your Asianisation of Australia; your feminsation of Australia; your subsidisation of unions, lefties, trendies and chardonnay-sipping do-gooders; your letting criminals on the street; your grants to new-age artists government grants; your multicultural, whale-hugging, environmental green-loving, gay-promoting teachers polluting the minds of our children or allow snout-troughing consultants to conspire to manipulate public opinion or let able-bodied no-hopers get a free ride on the dole. Hear, hear.
Keating deserved to lose.
But what have we now?
The decision to go to war in Iraq was just as elitist as anything put on by the Keating Government.
Since the decision to go to war, all the publicly given reasons for it have been stripped away. The weapons of mass destruction are not there; more brutal regimes than Saddam’s deserved higher priority for toppling; there was no link between terrorist groups and Saddam’s regime; and now we know the world is a more dangerous, not a safer, place. Indeed, with Saddam out of the way terror cells in Iraq can flourish.
Why the elitist charade of telling the masses one rationale for war when the real rationale was something else.
Why not tell “ordinary” Australians the real reason for going to war: it is an ugly world out there. We are a small country. We need the security of the US. We should help the US Government and its President in their mad quest to democratise the Arab world not because we think that the quest has the slightest chance of success, but because if there is trouble in this part of the world the Americans will help us.
But no, we go to war because the Government knows what is best. It is completely elitist.
Australia’s constitutional arrangements allow for it. The declaration of war has been the prerogative of the Crown. The king goes to war, relying on his divine right. The prerogatives of the Crown in Australia are exercised by the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister. There is no need to be open about it – to even explain it to the Parliament, let alone get Parliament’s permission.
It is quite a dangerous model.
The Executive in Australia is chosen according to who holds the majority in the Lower House of the Parliament. This semi-fusion means less scrutiny of the Executive by the Parliament.
The Government can snow most parliamentary inquiries. It can refuse access to critical witness and information and at least for a time get away with misleading the public – as with the children overboard.
Government appointments to boards and other bodies get no scrutiny – Keating’s and Howard’s mates get the nod. Government expenditure on itself and its cronies does not get enough scrutiny.
We have had improvements. Oppositions have occasionally seen electoral advantage in playing to the anger of the voters. They have promised a slither of openness and have put it into effect early in their term. Declarations of MPs interests and the Charter of Budget Honesty are examples. But going to war is not. And nor are government appointments or having ministerial staff appear at parliamentary committees.
Power corrupts so it is best to separate it so holders of it can scrutinise each other. The Australian model allows elitism to flourish. In an earlier time when decency and conventions were adhered to, it did not matter so much. But the past two elitist governments have shown that we can no longer rely on decency and convention.
We need loser party discipline or more independents in the Parliament to provide greater accountability, scrutiny and, if necessary, reversal of executive decisions.
Otherwise the only recourse is to wait until election time to throw them out and give the other lot a go until they, too, get arrogant and elitist — as presumably will happen this time around.
It is not a very satisfactory cycle. It would be far better to make the process between elections more open so the arrogance is less likely to take hold in the first place.
The polls are showing people think they were lied to about children overboard; there was no need for this manic inhuman treatment of refugees; and the Iraq war was folly.
Voters will tolerate mistakes up to a point but they will not tolerate being lied to or being taken for fools by elitist governments.