It is dangerous for Australian politicians to have ideas or convictions. It is dangerous because much of the media is very ready to punish any politician who engages in such untoward practices.
The media has a couple of ways of punishing politicians for having ideas. The first is to search for any possible clash with the prevailing party line or the position of the party leader. If such can be construed, then the headlines scream "disunity" or "threat to the leader's authority". Articulating ideas then becomes a politically risky business.
If, as in the case of the Liberal Party and the debate on the republic, there is no party line, then the politician can be attacked for being a "spoiler" or being in some other way improper.
No wonder politicians have such low standing in our society -- about as low as journalists, though still above used-car salespeople -- if that is the way they are going to be reported.
Which leads us to the very odd situation where large sections of the media apparently think it is wrong for the Prime Minister to have monarchist convictions -- or at least to act on them. Or for Peter Reith, to publicly express a belief that any President should be directly elected -- even though that it is entirely consistent with Reith's long-expressed support for citizen-initiated referenda.
It is an odd democratic process when a senior politician expressing views which happen to accord with those of about two-thirds of the electorate is treated as some sort of "spoiler". Given that we are, in a few months, going to vote on whether Australia should become a republic with an indirectly elected President, one wonders when Peter Reith's journalistic critics think it would be proper for Peter Reith to express support for a directly elected President? Presumably, only when it doesn't matter.
What we have is a situation where it is held to be proper for the media to overwhelmingly have -- and express in their reporting -- convictions in favour of a republic and an indirectly elected president yet it is held to be improper that the Prime Minister and a senior politician have, or at least express, contrary convictions.
That much of the media is so willing to display in their news reporting a particular and common preference on this question is a collective abuse of position. Conversely, it is entirely appropriate, that senior politicians from all parties express what they think should be the constitutional order.
In particular, the implication that the Prime Minister, if he cannot support the yes case, should be a public cipher on the issue is ludicrous. What makes this case so different from the other 42 constitutional amendments that have been put to the Australian people? Nothing, except a breathtaking level of collective partisanship on the part of most of the media, particularly the Canberra press gallery. Oh, and the unique instance of a constitutional amendment being put to the people with which the Prime Minister of the day does not agree.
This says something about John Howard's sense of fair play. The abuse he has been receiving from much of the media over it says a lot about theirs. And their sense of professionalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment