By Bruce Wearne
Bruce Wearne provides our first reflection. Bruce gives thought to the meaning of the Labor victory particularly in relation to the complexity of our social and political life.
(More respondents to follow.)
The Political Challenge of Complex Interdependence
From Nurturing Justice
If there were a line in Kevin Rudd's victory speech that could help us explain the "swing to Labor", bringing with it a change in government, it might be this: "It is necessary for us to embrace the future as a nation united, forged with common vision. I want to put aside the old battles of the past - the old battles between business and unions, the old battles between growth and the environment, the old and tired battles between federal and state, the old battles between public and private. It's time for a new page to be written in our nation's history."
This statement shows that the PM-elect has wanted to tap a "grass roots" sentiment that avoids playing with reality in terms of outworn ideologies. He was the electoral victor over John Howard because he understood how a majority of Australians of all ages have been seeking a new political orientation. There is a strong desire in his words to find a path that actually diverges from former policies including those of "economic rationalism". "Economic rationalism" has been dominant in our national political life since the 1980s. It was the term which the Hawke-Keating administration gave to its "left-wing" version of neo-liberalism as they set about their wide-sweeping industrial reforms and changes to finance and higher education. It should not be forgotten that these reforms provided John Howard's administration with the framework by which the Coalition's neo-liberal policies have also been implemented since 1996.
In this sense Saturday night's "swing to Labor" was also evidence of a significant swing within Labor Party and ACTU ranks. In order to face the realities of an increasingly complex society, it has been necessary to significantly modify former ideologies. To state it broadly (and thereby risk over-simplification) the majority of the electorate believed that Labor's approach to the complexities of our political life is more realistic than what the Coalition offered. But it should be kept in mind that 4 million voters were still persuaded by the Coalition's appeal, and that number was just franctionally less than Labor's total vote.
Labor's victory can be ascribed to an electorate that is confronted by increasingly complex issues (at home, at school, at work, in politics, in ethics, in regional and global affairs) which can no longer be adequately explained, let alone confronted, by simplisitic either/or formulae. We might say, adding to Kevin Rudd's statement, that the old binary oppositions no longer work. It is not enough to appeal to a dualistic antithesis between business and unions, or growth and the environment, or federal versus state, or even public versus private. Labor has had to "move on" if it wants to capture the realities of what people want government to do for them. And in that sense we might further generalise and say that the Liberal Coalition lost because it was too ideologically fixated on the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) formulae which no longer courts the reality of the lives of most people.
Let me give just one example: the long-serving member of the electorate in which I live suffered a decisive loss. The reason has as much to do with his obssessive marketting strategies which became an embarrassment to his own Liberal voters. He sent up to a dozen letters and leaflets to the constituents in the last fortnight of the campaign. His support melted away, it would seem, because these items all said the same thing and hence, among their friends in this local community, this member's supporters were made to feel rather silly. The latest item of this barrage always implicitly suggested that nobody reads this electoral propaganda anyway. As a result this member found himself sending out more! We might say that his election strategy was undermined by a commitment that somehow confused his view of business marketting with electoral education. In the meantime he forgot the real needs of electors, including the real needs of those disposed to vote for his own party.
Conclusion
What is there to learn from this election?
On this occasion we can say that the Liberal Coalition's ambiguity contrasts with the Labor Party's grasp of reality; that is one cogent way of describing the "swing".
The Coalition's traditional election strategy has been that they are better at "managing the economy" and on this occasion the rhetoric was no different. We might say that this "management" function of Government is a balancing act, and it is located somewhere between the twin poles of independence and inter-dependence. The Coalition believes that inter-dependence is best achieved by Governments giving priority to independence; social inter-dependence is the goal and emphasis upon individual initiative and the rights of individuals is the means. Labor, on the other hand, views independence as best established when Government policy gives proper recognition to societal interdependence. Human independence is the goal and a policy emphasis upon cooperation, corporate initiative and human inter-dependence becomes the means. These are the two dominant ways in which policy is formulated in this country. On this occasion Australian voters have "swung" (significantly but not completely) to the view that Government's task is to facilitate interdependence in order to ensure long-term independence. In terms of the major political debate of the election campaign - Industrial Relations - the Howard Government's WorkChoices legislation was viewed as "out of balance", as disadvantaging those who are most at risk in their workplaces, and in their families. Individuals and families need a legislative framework that strengthens, rather than weakens, inter-dependence with dignity.
I do not wish to go much further than this at this stage. The "swing", is away from a policy agenda that tries to shape the national economy in terms of individual independence. To reiterate - the Coalition view has been that social interdependence is the ends and the means is to give priority to individual independence. For Rudd's Labor Government, individual independence is the goal and the means is a fabric of societal inter-dependence strengethened by government intervention.
There is a complex issue here that requires systematic elaboration. It is also a matter that requires theoretical and philosophical reflection. If a comprehensive policy framework is to be developed that promotes authentic public justice it will need an approach that gives proper and due regard to the independent identity of all social institutions, organisations and relations as well as facing up to their necessary interdependence in terms of the high degree of complex interdependence in which all of us now live out our lives. At this point in time the goal that Kevin Rudd has set for the Labor Party in Government is indeed a genuine strengthening of all the institutions of our social life. We might say that the aim, the goal, the ideal, is to have families, schools, hospitals and businesses strengthened in their capacities to do what they do best - for families to be families (and raise children and care for their elders), for schools to be schools (and be genuine communities of learning and teaching), for hospitals to be hospitals (of care, to promote public health and provide bodily support), for local communities to be communities (of sustaining friendship), for businesses to be businesses (where capital and labour work cooperatively to develop work-place productivity and harmony, and of course for government to be government (to promote a public legal framework to guide our societal complexity).
The hope that many have for this Labor Government is that its legislative programmes will help to develop our society so that the distinctive character of these diverse institutions are properly understood and developed. They are not part of the State, or departments of government, but require a legislative framework in which their own public interests are respected and protected. That way the Government indeed makes an indispensible contribution to in promoting a renewed public-legal harmony that also recognises 'the role of government in ensuring the distinctive integrity of all persons and institutions in our increasingly complex national life.
As with any government, the ensuing legislative programme will need to be carefully and critically examined, so that when appropriate a loud and clear voice can be raised to remind all of the path of public justice.
Bruce C Wearne
Point Lonsdale
26/11/2007