US political scientist Francis Fukuyama wonders why it didn’t happen a whole lot sooner. He was referring to the rise of the protest candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Fukuyama argues that the people who support these two are disaffected with mainstream politics. Trump supporters, who are mainly white, middle-aged, male and less well-off, are disaffected by what they see as a political elite that has sold out American jobs with free trade agreements.
This is why his “make America great again” slogan resonates with this group.
Sanders supporters also see political elites selling out to big business and special interests in a way detrimental to the health, education and welfare of ordinary Americans. Sanders, too, opposes free trade and its effect on American jobs.
Fukuyama was writing in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs magazine.
He is right to point out the sell-out to the political elites which has been going on for several decades.
But the reason it has taken so long for the disaffected outsiders to go so far in a US presidential campaign is due to the nature of the presidential political system and the huge amount of money it takes to get off the ground.
It required a rare billionaire outsider (usually billionaires are inside the system busily rent-seeking), on one side, and the new internet-based phenomenon of crowd funding, on the other.
Now it has come this far, Fukuyama says it is imperative that the two mainstream parties start behaving themselves lest the whole system and the nation itself is put in jeopardy.
Similar things could be said about Australia.
In particular, if the elite-baiting outsiders’ detestation of free trade turns into a bout of protectionism, either here or in the US everyone loses. Every sound independent economic analysis shows the overall benefit of free trade – provided, of course, that the education, training and welfare systems are good enough to help those displaced. If they are not, they are ripe for exploitation by the Trumps and extremist political parties of the world – and there is one or more in every country.
Fukuyama’s warning is pertinent. The charges of political elitism and of being out of touch carry a lot of substance in Australia.
The most recent Parliament Library study on the occupational background of parliamentarians is instructive. Alas, it was for the 2010-13 Parliament, but I doubt much has changed since.
When you look at the 226 federal parliamentarians, a half come from the political/legal class. These include former political staffers; state and local politicians; union officials; former lobbyists; and lawyers.
A quarter come from business. And only a quarter come from elsewhere. If you take the farmers out of that quarter and put them in business, only a fifth of MPs come from outside the political/legal class or business.
So the hugely under-represented class in the Parliament is wage and salary earners – the very people who are the most numerous class of voters.
Is it any wonder that our politicians are out of touch? Is it any wonder they are seen as a political elite pandering to their own and to special business and union interests?
The Orange Election Report by the Grattan Institute published this week illustrates the point.
“A government that is prepared to forcefully articulate the public interest could stare down interest groups and win public support for a brave and powerful reform agenda,” it said. But, it continues, “Australia’s political system is not dealing well with the country’s problems. Our politicians are creating expectations that far exceed what government can ever do, while often failing to act on the things they can control. The result is an often barren debate and a dull campaign, yet surveys show the public accepts the need for reform, and is ready to slay sacred cows such as negative gearing.
“The failure of reform nerve over the past 15 years should not obscure the fact that reform could make a big difference.”
The report lists a dozen or more reforms which would benefit the nation massively, yet they would require the political elites in our Parliament to stop pandering to sectional interests.
If they don’t, living standards will fall in comparison to other nations and more voters will support minor parties and independents – some good, some appalling.
Low and middle wage and salary earners are especially disaffected. Business and the wealthy are getting all the tax breaks. Unions are busily looking after themselves and in any event do not represent 80 per cent of the workforce. This leaves wage and salary earners to the mercy of business (over represented in the Parliament).
Small wonder more people are feeling powerless or feel the only way to empowerment is through minor parties and independents – some good, many appalling.
Admittedly, both major parties have each at least uncoupled one carriage from two very long gravy trains. Labor has made a small step with negative gearing and the Coalition has made a small step with superannuation. But significant tax reform eludes them both.
The experience of three other Anglophone countries is instructive. Britain seems to be going the way of Australia and the US. Labour’s new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is very much a Bernie Sanders figure and the rising support for leaving the European Union smacks of Trumpesque protectionism and the slogan “make Britain/America great again”.
In Canada, both major parties have had spectacular collapses with the rise of viable third parties, but the (progressive/left) Liberal Party gained dramatically at the last election after its leader, Justin Trudeau, stared down the special interests and promoted social and economic change that resonated with the public.
In New Zealand they changed the voting system so the whole national vote determines the number of MPs a party gets. The system was not driven by marginal electorates and pork-barrelling, as in Australia.
The result has been that the (conservative) National Party has not been captured by the far right (as in Australia) and has engaged in significant social and economic reform that has gone down well with the electorate.
The lesson seems to be: use power in a representative, accountable, responsive way or lose it.
CRISPIN HULL
This article first appeared in The Canberra Times and other Fairfax Media on 18 June 2016.
I cannot follow the logic of your argument. You have identified, correctly in my view, a growing disaffection among lower and middle wage and salary earners (I would add the un- and under-employed). That this is a reflection of a growing disparity between the rich and the rest is also unarguable. Nevertheless, you seem to be repeating the “free trade” mantra, which has largely led to this situation. The adoption of “economic rationalism” 30 years ago was supposed to bring unheralded prosperity. Yes, GDP is higher and average incomes and wealth are higher, but the distribution is ever more skewed towards the affluent. Just today it was suggested that 40% of the Australian workforce is now casual, part-time or in otherwise insecure employment. This has to sooner or later translate into social disruption (if it hasn’t already in some urban areas) and yes, the rise of demagogues.