Peter Costello’s outline of the functioning of liberal democracies and civil society is a very sound conservative analysis. The Treasurer has quite rightly pointed out the tensions between government and civil society in providing necessary services in our community. The breathing room for civil society to create connections and allow individuals to establish comforting notions of ‘place’, ‘community’ and ‘tolerant diversity’ is crucial to the prosperity and freedom of a modern democracy.

Many of your readers would have one significant qualification to his analysis of the role of government. What should government do where civil societies fail? What is the role for governments where communities cannot provide for a functioning civil society eg subsistence communities where gaining food is more important than sport, scouts or bbqing for fires.

Clearly missing within Costello’s speech was a notion of equity in the extent to which government will participate in liberal democracies. Equity, whilst not my point of view, is obviously a missing element in the Treasurer’s speech for many Australians.

Having largely accepted what Peter Costello argues it is surprising to me that the government is pursuing some of its policies. Tolerance and diversity unencumbered by government interference is directly threatened by amendments to Cross Media Laws. Costello pointed out that some Australians find ‘proxy’ communities in the Cheers and Neighbours shows . It could also be said that alternative political and social commentary provided by the Fairfax press and the ABC act as a proxy to some Australian viewpoints. How does amending our media laws to provide Australians with fewer voices that influence the debates in our civil society help promote tolerance?

I can already hear your readers suggest that my surprise should extend to his

lack of tolerance in refugees, reconciliation etc. Perhaps they are right and perhaps not. But I emphasise cross media Laws in this context because without a diverse media environment your concerns for a more tolerant society will be increasingly harder to hear.

PS: Isn’t Transparency and Accountability of process key to engendering trust in Iraq? Perhaps Australians should examine the role and accountability of political minders as firewalls protecting our Federal and State government ministers from taking responsibility for their decisions.

The silent, stoic republic. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com

How do we own the ideas, ideals and institutions we label ourselves with?

When contemplating the array of debates going on in the Webdiary, I have been tempted to confronted each argument and debate the merits or otherwise of every one, to engorge myself with each battle and become lost in the swirling minutiae of fors and againsts.

Having tossed around many of the problems of each argument I was left with the disheartening realisation that there would barely be enough time in the day, even if all I did was think and write, to barely touch upon the surface of one of them. When this sickening reality finally struck home, I was tempted to throw the towel in and go to sleep.

Unfortunately for all Webdiary readers, I stayed awake and came to the conclusion that I would have to go back to the philosophical foundations of my worldview and begin again.

Finding myself defending the messenger more so than the message – in political discussions on the Web and in the real world – became depressing. Having been found guilty or gullible by association in these conversations, I thought I should dig around some philosophical books to see if I really had conservative beliefs or not. Rather than bore you with multiple references, I will provide you with a brief extract from The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought:

Conservatism/Conservative

As a political doctrine, conservatism emphasizes ‘the politics of imperfection’. Philosophical conservatism emphasizes tradition, authority, law and order, and the impossibility of achieving anything resembling the utopias which radicals have longed for. Human nature, in the eyes of most conservatives, is too imperfect to allow society to dispense with the guidance of tradition and the government of firm authority. Mankind is too shortsighted and too passionate to agree on one answer to the question how best to order our social and political affairs, let alone to do everything that it would demand. It is better to emphasises known duties, to accommodate individual diversity by letting individuals use their own property in the ways they see fit, to preserve the authority of the state by limiting its role to national defence and the policing of the market place, and to strengthen institutions such as the family, schools and churches as a means of securing a sound public morality. Many conservatives have objected to attempts to elicit a ‘philosophy’ of conservatism on the ground that conservatism is not a creed but a disposition, and that the conservative differs from radicals and intellectuals precisely because he is willing to change his mind and abandon any particular doctrine or any particular goal for the sake of conserving the vital interests of his society.(pp167-168)

Having read this outline, I was fortified in my belief that a ‘conservative’ I am. Having found out this answer and the reassurance I sought, a larger question begged itself.

In an age of brands, spin (call it propaganda if you choose) and ‘shoot the messenger’ politics, how do we own the ideas, ideals and institutions we label ourselves with?

Carmen Lawrence underlined many of the problems that face the Australian democracy in Ideas to save our withering democracy, and whilst I do not agree with every characterisation that she made or agreed with the remedies she put forward, there were some valuable observations. The following is my characterisation of some of them.

Are political parties unduly sacrificing ‘the national interest’, political debate and accountable and responsible government by focussing on strategies to maintain power?

How is the medium of communication (TV, mass media, sound byte politics) shaping Australian political debate, and is this directly undermining the confidence of the Australian people in our democratic institutions?

What role are intermediaries between the people and our representatives – journalists, spin doctors, party machine men, special interest groups and corporations – having in our democracy? All may have a role and even a necessary voice – but do we have the institutional transparency to be able to monitor whether there are intersections of undue influence with our major political parties?

Without debating the issues that Ms. Lawrence raised, I would like readers to consider the problem from this point of view: How do we own the ideas, ideals and institutions we label ourselves with?

In our democracy we impart our sovereignty to elected representatives and through this social contract our ideas, ideals and institutions live and change. Does it require us, as Dr Lawrence puts forth, to actively reform our parliamentary democracy to disintermediate and make our representatives more accountable? Put another way, how do we ensure that our political parties hold the national interest first and foremost in their policy framework? Also, just as importantly, how do we restore the ownership of the people in the ideas, ideals and institutions we associate ourselves with?

The central issue I am trying to draw attention to is this – we need to reinvestigate our beliefs. Do you feel that you own the ideas, ideals and institutions you label yourself with?

You could argue each and every issue on Webdiary and be lost in the minutiae of each battle. There are lots of people attempting to own your ideas, ideals and institutions – are you winning battles but losing the war? Or alternatively switch off Carmen, Margo and myself – throw in the towel and sleep well. Goodnight.

To the chagrin of all art-loving, latte drinking, foreign-film watching bleeding hearts out there, 21st Century Australia is dominated by sport, sport and more sport. So when the ALP considers how it is going to dig itself out of its electoral hole it could look at what Australian sporting clubs do when faced with a crisis.

1. Get everyone swimming in the same direction

An age-old adage in Australian sporting clubs is that if performance on the field is consistently bad for a long period of time then something is going wrong off the field. It could be at board level, or with the coaching staff or player recruitment, but if everyone is not moving in the same direction you can hardly expect the players to get it right on the field.

Simon Crean and his leadership group are the players. Is everyone behind them swimming in the same direction? Can they really be expected to get political traction when there are factions within the party actively undermining them?

2. Do we have the structure in place for success on the field?

You can have all the best tactical ideas for on-field performance but if you do not have the structure in place to facilitate the best outcomes you end up butting your head against the proverbial brickwall. The lines of communication need to be open between all levels of the organisation – between the board and the coaching staff, coaching staff and recruiters, and the club and its fans.

Whilst there have been many internal reforms going in the ALP, have they got the most crucial part of their structure right – open lines of communication?

3. Do we have the right people in place?

It’s obvious that you need the right coach, on field captain and leadership group. To keep your fans turning up week in and week out during bad on-field performances is very difficult, but if the fans believe your coach and captain are capable of turning the situation around they’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

But the fans are only part of it. If the whole organisation is not in agreement on these key positions then it pervades all on and off-field debate.

The most important qualities of sporting club leaders are a core system of beliefs about the club and the ability to get everyone to sacrifice self-interest for the team’s success.

Are Simon Crean and his leadership group able to inspire this in the ALP? Maybe the lack of a structure behind Crean means he hasn’t got a united team, but I don’t think so. The problem is that there is a fundamental rift about the core systems of belief in the party. Can Simon Crean win over everyone in his organisation to his core system of beliefs? If he can, players will put aside personal ambition for party success.

4. Process over Results

This is a very fashionable concept in sporting circles. If we get the process and execution right then the results will follow. This means preparation – diet, physical training and tactical drills. The thinking is that we get right what we can control before we even think about our opponents.

Rather than responding to the issues occupying the day- to the daily news cycle – the ALP should be getting its preparation right. Do the shadow ministers fully, deeply understand what is happening in their portfolio? Do the backbenchers know what their electorates think? Is there a strong process in place to get all the best ideas in the party to the leadership group? Have they sought advice from specialists outside their organisation?

5. Passion

Fans and coaches will forgive a lot of things if the players have passion. You can have all the talent in the world, but if you do not have passion you will never win the trust of the coach or the devotion of the fans.

The ALP committed a heinous sin by adopting the small target, ‘not lose’ strategy. The leadership turned off ALP representatives, members and supportive voters by not showing passion. The Australian public knows what John Howard stands for but do they know what the ALP stands for.

6. Keep it simple, stupid

Whether the message is from the coach to the players, the club to its fans or the club to its sponsors, the adage ‘Keep it simple, stupid’ always applies. It is the hallmark to success in any club because it usually means that everyone can understand the message and sign up to it.

Whether it is a message to voters or within its organisation the ALP has to keep the message simple. Contrast the knowledge nation hodge podge with IT’S TIME.

Maybe Simon Crean should visit Arden St. and ask the boys at his beloved North Melbourne how they keep a financially struggling club alive.

Disclosure: I’m one of those over-represented, much maligned minority groups – conservative white male. Love my footy (any and all footy), cricket, beer, bourbon and horse racing. My left-over brain cells from years of party hard in Sydney’s pubs and clubs have been used to work over-time (without union representation) and to consume history, philosophy and espionage books. I’ve worked in dodgy $2 shops and as a disability support staffer, a failed pool hustler, a battered and bruised bubble stockbroker and a resident jack of all trades in an industrial technology company in the United States. Pet hates – bad jockeys and self-servicing politicians. Ambitions – to write a decent novel one day and to own a Melbourne Cup winner. (Daniel lives in the blue ribbon Sydney north shore seat of Bradfield.)

Andrew Wilkie’s experience is an important comment on the functioning of Western Democracies. Spin Doctors and firewalls around Ministerial responsibility are a corrosive disease on the democratic fabric. It is not only in the most prominent political battlegrounds of the coalition of the willing but throughout democracies at all levels of government that these tactics of political opportunism and survival are undermining the foundations of our democracies.

For many conservative Australians the disturbing aspect of Spin Doctors and firewalls is that many good policies are being undermined by the unnecessary spin used to implement and defend them. Whether policies stand or fall appears to be more reliant on the success or not of the spin than the merits of the policy. Firewalls play a similar role as they abrogate the responsibility of the Minister for the decisions the government makes.

The sovereign power of the people conferred upon politicians require that they be held responsible and accountable for their actions. Jack Robertson described several solutions to enhance the transparency surrounding the Ministers of our government and all have varying degrees of merit. All should be included in an attack on this unelected coterie of advisers, but more importantly Ministers should be held directly accountable for the actions of their advisers.

I do not claim to be all- knowing on this subject, and would be interested to know the answers to the following questions:

Isn’t the higher echelon of the public service supposed to offer advice on the positive and negative implication of policies? If so, then surely the coterie of advisers are only used in a party political sense.

Have Australian politicians always used publicly funded advisers who are not members of the public bureaucracy?

Has there been a significant change in the powers of parliamentary committees to investigate Ministerial conduct? Have they been officially or unofficially detoothed?

I ask these questions because if the parliament is not a proxy for the people then we are not living in a democracy. The ballot box is NOT the ONLY vehicle for the public holding politicians accountable – in fact one of the parliament’s major functions is to represent the public interest between election periods. Politicians have failed to see the trees for the forest – their political opponents represent the collective will of a large proportion of any given electorate and Parliamentary committees have a right to hold Ministers accountable on an ongoing basis.

Whether or not you believe that the War on Iraq was justified, transparency and accountability in our democracy appears to be at a low ebb. John Howard, Bob Carr and all democratic leaders should be held accountable for their actions and the actions of their spin doctors.

Margo: Dan, you’re such a romantic! For the truth about our utterly compromised public service and our politicians’ completely unaccountable political advisers, see former public servant John Nethercote’s analysis of the children overboard inquiry at What servants are for. John wrote:

“For the public service, the affair demonstrates its fragility in the face of both ministers and, more perniciously, ministerial staffers. In the absence of adequate means to bring ex-ministers and ministerial staff to account, it demonstrates the vulnerability of the modern public service.”

Image by George Hirst, editor of the Magnetic Times newspaper in North Queensland.

As a supporter of J. Howard on many issues, in particular his U.S. alliance in foreign policy and a free, deregulated Australian economy, I thought you might find it interesting that not all conservative voters support his proposed changes to the Senate, ASIO legislation and Cross Media Laws.

It is true that Australians are more vulnerable than U.S. citizens because of our lack of a Bill of Rights. I would certainly feel much more comfortable if we had our own Bill of Rights with respect to ASIO’s new powers, not because of your fears with regards to Mr. Howard’s government, but any future government of radical persuasions.

With regards to his proposed changes to the Senate and Cross media Laws, I firmly believe that the best traditions of our democracy support the rule of the majority but also that minority voices are heard and have influence. The sustainability of our democracy and its principle strength is that it allows many voices to be heard and represented. Whilst the Senate can be obstructionist and frustrating, it is through the Senate and its diverse representative powers that our federated democracy exists.

Similiarly, an informed debate through a diverse media base provides the lifeblood of civil society and although many of the views expressed by the ‘left’ in the media, in my humble opinion, are ill-informed and misdirected it is necessary that they are heard.

Whilst it will be a difficult decision, if our Prime Minister persisted with more of these changes, in particular to the Senate, I might have to change my vote.

Margo: Hi Daniel. You know, I consider myself a small l liberal – it’s a shock to feel so far left! I wonder, though, how many voters like you there are in marginal seats? Perhaps most small ls are in safe Liberal or inner city safe Labor seats?

Daniel: Thank you for taking the time to respond. I would not not know if I fit any political category, being in step with Howard on foreign policy yet opposed on many domestic policies. Having voted for Howard consistently since 1996, for many Australians like me leadership is a key basis for choice of parties. Without going into the intricacies of why Labor does not resonate with me, let me put it this way. Howard vs. Crean – Howard. Howard vs Beazley – Howard. Howard vs Latham – Latham would be a strong chance of changing my mind, Howard vs. a woman – 50/50 – as I would like to see Australia with a female PM.

Mark Latham’s biggest strength is that you have a fair idea where he stands on most things – and whilst I do not agree with many things he says, he does make me feel that the job would not overwhelm him.

Any woman would stand a chance against Howard merely because it would highlight the differences between the two parties, if only symbolically. Labor’s key problem is highlighting the difference between the two parties – Latham would do it by force of personality and a female leader would symbolise going forward in a compelling way.

All that being said – it does require Howard to be too radical in his changes coupled with a strong alternative to get a naturally conservative voter like myself and many other ‘joes’ out there to change their mind.

Keep up the controversy because I love reading views that are well thought out even though I strongly disagree with them.

I’m in Bradfield, a very safe Liberal seat.

Margo: Bradfield, eh? As I recall Brendan Nelson fought long and hard against Howard’s proposal to abolish cross media laws in 1997 (keeping foreign limits) so Packer could get Fairfax. Jamie said on A Current Affairhe “wants Fairfax for Christmas”. Not a word from Brendan now, though.