There was a surfeit of alliteration that broke out after the announcement of this year's election date. Prime Minister Julia Gillard called for 'policies and plans' to be at the centre of national discourse, instead of 'petty politics' and 'platitudes devoid of purpose'. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott reiterated the Coalition's 'positive plans' for a 'prosperous economy'. This preponderance of Ps reminded me of another p-word: personality.
It may seem to some that Australian political culture has only recently veered toward characterisations of political candidates, but we have always been led by such perceptions.
Somehow we need that face, the embodiment of the institution with which we are engaging. It explains why so much of public debate involves personalities and their supposed motives and machinations. Politics is reality-TV writ large, featuring the same fragile alliances, elimination challenges and ceremonial evictions.
Abbott's statement that the 2013 election is about trust is thus correct — but also redundant. Every election is ultimately about trust. The problem of who to trust, however, lies at the end of a string of other important questions. For as far as politics goes, there are no spectators; we are all on the same island.
What then would be the appropriate basis for trust? Are perceptions of trustworthiness grounded in objective measures such as policy costings, economic priorities, and ministerial calibre?
What does trustworthiness even mean in politics, where the best-intentioned people become compromised and governance involves many variables beyond control? How do we reconcile different objects of trust, when relying on our leaders to preserve the status quo is vastly different to counting on reform? How do we make sense of trust when policies are often crafted from two or more equally desirable but opposite things?
It seems the case that framing the vote in terms of trust has limitations, not least because we're talking about politicians here. It renders voters passive, as if their role in the political process begins and ends at the ballot. In democracies, we are called to be vigilant.
Such vigilance is not neutral. For it to have any meaning, for it to not be subject to the vagaries of industry and media, it must be tied to larger, non-dispensable values. This includes our sense of the common good.
It is