Ed: Thank you, Chris, for this thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. Come on, Webdiarists, we all need to be getting out here and now, saying what we expect of "our" representatives. Please take Chris Saliba as an example, and emulate him.
The quality of the politician depends on the quality of the vote
by Chris Saliba [0]
We Australians are always complaining about the quality of our elected politicians. The complaint often finds a cynical expression, frequently seeing our politicians as nothing less than self-interested mediocrities grasping at the public purse. Or worse, as compulsive liars who will do anything to stay in office. With a world-weary groan, voters see their politicians as a generic type beyond rehabilitation. Breaking promises and rioting on tax payers’ money are seen as qualities virtually inbred into a politician’s DNA.
How did this class of people capture our free political institutions and take them over? Frequently, the language used to describe politicians hints at a patiently endured autocracy.
Yet would you believe it, we actually ask these people to sit in the nation’s parliaments and run things. Not only that, we fork over a portion of our weekly earnings to keep the whole machine running.
As a nation, we’re keen on voting, dutifully turning up to polling booths for state, federal and council elections. It’s an odd year when we’re not voting. Our democracy, technically speaking, is supposed to work something like this. We select from a list of candidates someone whose policies and values best suit us. If elected, the candidate then becomes our representative in parliament. If the candidate fails, then we may have to look elsewhere to make our voice heard, like a phone call to the local member or a letter to a newspaper.
Hopeful politicians, when you think about it, present themselves like regular job candidates. If we don’t get good politicians, it must mean we’re not paying enough attention during the interview process. When a candidate turns out to be a dud we prefer to go grizzling to pollsters and talkback radio rather than blame ourselves for a poor choice.
As it stands the system almost works in reverse. Instead it is political parties, think tanks and professional ‘social researchers’ who actually interview us. We are polled to death and more analysed than a self-absorbed interviewee on Oprah. The electorate is treated like one big patient, with professional pollsters placing a stethoscope on our collective heart to check for fluctuations and irregularities. Each little blip is reported, catalogued, and then analysed by professionals in this ever-evolving science. Our passive citizenry have now become little more than the abstract data in the graphs and pie charts that make up the polls.
Modern political parties are hopelessly addicted to the vice of polling and focus groups. Opinions, views and reactions are gathered, then written up in reports and sweated over by party strategists. Political slogans are road tested like a new advertising jingle for chewing gum or diet cola. If a particular expression goes down well with focus groups, it will be used in campaigns as it has been proved to ‘connect’ with voters. No wonder political language pitched at the electorate has the nauseous, dull, reverberating ring of a bell chamber. Politicians are speaking to us in what their polling scientists have discovered to be the ‘authentic’ voice of Australia.
Much of this poor language is fed back to us via the media and its journalists. Most political commentary seems to accept the meaninglessness of modern politics. One common description used by commentators is to refer to political parties or their individual politicians as a ‘brand’. For example, ‘the Rudd brand has been tarnished’, or ‘the Liberal brand is looking stale’. The obvious meaning is that all parties and politicians are essentially white bread packaged into meaningless commercial wrappers. Citizens who value their vote should find this offensive.
If there is anyone to blame for this mess, it is us. We have become too seduced by a diet of junk media that is high in sugar, salt and fat, but not much else. When Channel Seven’s Sunrise program took on Kevin Rudd back in 2001, the show’s producer Adam Boland did so because he thought Rudd was ‘cute’ and ‘lovable’, and therefore safe for viewers to digest without difficulty. Boland also said that Sunrise would not advertise upcoming political stories because it would cause a dip in their viewers.
This is how our democratic responsibilities slowly melt away over time. Bit by bit we find politics boring and beneath us. Armed with little information, it makes us ripe for a fear campaign or its opposite, an appeal to our greed with the promise of tax breaks and other goodies.
The good news is that our bad political situation is within reach to fix. Citizens can reclaim their democracy by taking full responsibility for their action at the ballot box. If a candidate fails us, we need to accept we made the wrong choice and judged poorly. Then we need to start thinking optimistically about the future. Pessimism and an “all politicians are crap” attitude may make us momentarily feel good, but in the end it will get us nowhere.
Democracy must be a constructive working partnership between citizens and the politicians they vote to represent them. Despite the cynical attitude of many, politicians are not installed by themselves. The quality of the politician ultimately depends on the quality of the vote. It’s up to us to ensure the political candidates we vote for are good enough to represent us.