Will the scream from Queensland be understood and responded to appropriately? Or will we just continue with the follies that led us to this pass?
If democracy is about giving people what a majority of them want, Australian democracy has some persistent failings. Polls regularly indicate that a majority of Australians want capital punishment, lower immigration, an elected President and are protectionist in sentiment. No major political Party will provide the first, immigration quotas have only recently been lowered, after quite a binge, people are not going to be offered the option of an elected President at the scheduled referendum and, despite some hiccups, Australia continues to march down the free trade path.
Some divergence between public policy and majority sentiments is inevitable. Opinion polls record "top of the head" opinion. Confront people with a real decision, and their opinions often change as they become more informed -- a classic example of that was provided in the ACT when 70% opinion poll support for single-member electorates became a 65% vote for the Hare-Clark system. (A vote that was confirmed in a second referendum, after people had actually experienced the new system).
Treating deeply held concerns as not fit for discussion, however, creates a well of concern and resentment waiting to be tapped. Systematically tag people who raise certain concerns or ideas with abusive epithets, then of course the only ones likely to persevere in the public arena are the most radical, the most "crazy", because they are the ones who will care least about those epithets.
What is the unmentionable issue that gives Pauline Hanson her initial credibility? Aboriginal youth lawlessness. In large swags of rural and fringe-urban Australia -- such as, for example, Ipswich -- people are genuinely concerned about bashings and robberies by Aboriginal youth and youth gangs -- a concern very much shared by many older Aboriginals. But in too much public "debate" Aborigines are not given the dignity of full moral personalities -- i.e. being also able to behave badly.
By being willing to raise an issue of genuine concern which others will not talk about Pauline gets a credibility which is then transferred across to other issues. She taps into sentiments such as those which hold that it is not right to have public policy treat people differently on the basis of race -- so why do we? That such special treatment, in the case of Aboriginal Australia, is demonstrably not working -- as their static or declining health profiles show -- merely reinforces many people in their views.
There are large parts of rural and fringe-urban Australia who have been badly affected by economic changes; who pay rising taxes (the tax take is now the highest in Australian history), struggle with increasing regulation -- epitomised by ever more complex tax forms (the Commonwealth Parliament passed more pages of legislation from 1990 to 1995 than it did from 1901 to 1974) -- while facing more competition, withdrawal of services and apparently entrenched mass unemployment. Their views and concerns are not reflected in the "quality" press, which is far more often likely to tell them how wrong they are than talk to their concerns. They are the "white niggers" -- neither respected, nor listened to.
So often, city decision-makers ignore country values and interests. A city psychopath goes mad with a gun -- so country people lose their guns. Digital phones are more convenient for the city -- so country people lose their analogue phones, despite communication being much more vital in the daily lives of country people. City people get guilty about aborigines, so country people have their property rights placed under massive uncertainty. Reform and privatisation of government businesses wipe out provincial jobs. Award wage rates set in the cities -- where housing costs are higher and transport costs are lower -- increase rural unemployment.
Much of the antipathy to privatisation and the protectionism -- the trade and investment xenophobia -- of Hansonism comes straight out of the policies of the Democrats (who also advocate low immigration) and the left of the ALP -- Pauline is merely a more consistent xenophobe. Yet no one asks them to justify sharing policies with Pauline. Surely it is easy enough to see how there are people who feel that only such policies speak to their sense of insecurity and fear of unwanted changes.
So why cannot we deal with the feelings of insecurity and unwanted changes that other parts of Hansonism clearly also pay attention to? (And which, given her economic policies are already on offer from Democrats, Greens and ALP Left, are clearly much more important in her appeal).
Of course many people resent taxpayer-funded special arrangements for Aborigines. If you are struggling to pay off a mortgage, or cannot even aspire to a mortgage, of course the sight of a group, identified by their race, being given housing, legal support, special education funding etc, etc, is likely to give rise to resentment. Add to that the lauding of Aboriginal cultures in tandem with persistent denigration of mainstream Australian history and values, and grounds for resentment are multiplied.
Tell a group to shut up, listen to what they are told, adopt the values of their denigrators, accept changes they have not been consulted in or agreed to, accept being ignored and then also pay for all this out of their taxes, and pay for more and more and more what do you expect? Gratitude? Indefinite acquiescence?
I have nothing against attempts to improve matters. But could we please do so with a bit more generosity of spirit? An approach which says "this is a great country, so we should make sure we give everyone is a fair go" is so much more persuasive than "you are a bunch of homophobic, sexist, racist bastards with a history built on blood which we all should be thoroughly ashamed of and need to start apologising for right now". The latter is patronising, offensive and a patent exercise in moral self-aggrandisement by a self-appointed "elite". The former conveys a sense of a common enterprise -- a broad tent sheltering many differences -- which is precisely what is needed. Alas, our rhetorically-challenged Prime Minister has failed to use the language of the fair go to articulate an inclusive middle ground against both the sneering elitists of the guilt industry and the peddlers of more old-fashioned bigotry.
But it is not merely a matter of what Pauline says. It is what Pauline is. A battler. A tough mum. A fish-and-chip shop owner. The underdog getting under the skin of the city "toffs". She comes across as an ordinary woman that many people can identify with and who talks about things which bother them. Demonise Pauline and you are demonising them. No wonder National Party polling found that her support goes up when she is attacked.
So how should commentators respond? Don't use Pauline-bashing as an exercise in moral self-aggrandisement, in showing how morally superior you are, that just feeds her appeal. Don't act as if the Prime Minister, or anyone else, should attempt to close down debate or make issues unmentionable. It is fair to expect the Prime Minister to articulate a sense of Australia as a tolerant, fair-minded society; it is not fair to expect him to lead an elite media-lynch mob -- his joining that elite media-lynch mob by calling Pauline's policies "deranged" was dumb and patently massive counterproductive. Don't merely assert propositions from your value set and expect everyone to admire and agree with you. Consider the possibility that different experiences, and different perspectives, might be perfectly valid expressions of democratic diversity. Consider the possibility that people outside the Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra triangle might even understand things you don't. Spend more time reporting the entire nation to itself, rather than joining moral crusades.
And how should the Prime Minister respond? Don't attack her personally: she has too many iconic features which make an attack on her an attack on ordinary Australians. Wander around and find out what is really bothering people. Accept that policies are causing resentments and speak to those resentments -- which may mean changing or adapting policies. Harness pride in Australia and in being Australian. Don't be afraid of rhetoric, of articulating a sense of larger purpose -- provided it does really express the directions of your policies. Stick to principles and reasoned argument and explain what you are doing and why in ways which speaks to Cairns and Bundaberg, not merely Carlton and Balmain.
It is not all that hard, really. So why has such a meal been made of it?
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment