When Kevin Rudd announced an intervention into the ALP's corruption-prone NSW branch, sceptical commentators declared the proposed changes were merely cosmetic because they would not curb the power of Labor's factions. The point was well made, but cannot be directed against Rudd's more recent proposal for changing the method of electing the party's national leader. On the contrary, his plan, which would give a vote to rank-and-file members as well as MPs, is a direct challenge to factional chieftains and the system from which they derive their power.
The sceptics have their take on the leadership proposal too, of course: that it is driven by Rudd's continuing resentment of the way in which he was forced to step down as Labor leader and prime minister in 2010, and by his desire to so entrench his reclaimed leadership that he will be practically irremovable.
It is true that when reporters ask whether revenge is uppermost on his mind, Rudd's denials sound lame. But who would sound entirely plausible in responding with 'No, of course not' and 'I've got over all that'? And do his interlocutors seriously think that Rudd — or anyone in a similar position — could say anything else? The revenge question is a rhetorical ploy that momentarily makes good television but it is the cheapest of shots, barely above the level of 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?'
Whether or not Rudd has an ulterior motive, the more important question is whether changing the method of electing the leader is desirable for the party and for democratic participation generally. The short answer to that question is that the British Labour Party's experience of a broadly similar system demonstrates that the system works well. It has done so because it is an adaptation to changes in the level of voter engagement in the political process that have been under way for a long time in Britain and other comparable democracies, including Australia.
Even in Westminster, the classic Westminster system whose outlines are instilled in politics 101 students has ceased to exist. This should not be news to those who make their living by reporting and commenting on politics, but apparently it is. When Rudd replaced Julia Gillard a fortnight ago, a spate of commentary decreed that the turn of events amounted to the triumph of a quasi-presidential style of politics, in which successful leaders rise by their popularity with voters rather than