Last week was international election time. British and French voters went to the ballot box. Journalists and commentators diced and weighed the results. Politicians around the world no doubt poked the entrails to read the significance of the outcomes for their own parties in future elections. Many Australians from the Northeastern States, of course, quickly turned their attention to the deciding State of Origin game.
Most Australians with an interest in international politics, I imagine, would have been pleased to see the change of Government in Great Britain and the failure of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally Party (NRP) to gain power in France. They would have been concerned had the results been otherwise – shocked at an unexpected victory of the tired Conservative Party in Britain and disappointed at the anticipated victory of the NRP.
The popular mood after both elections, however, was less one of unbridled joy than of relief. In both nations people voted to get rid of what they saw as threats to good governance and to democratic institutions. Although in France many focused on denying the NRP a majority, they also emphatically rejected President Macron and his ruling Party. In Great Britain they turned against the ruling Conservative Party.
The sins for which they punished the governing parties included disrespect for democratic institutions and, in England, for scandalous and self-serving behaviour. The underlying reason, however, lay in the failure of their governments to respond to the decline in living standards and their neglect of such basic services as education, health, public transport, homelessness, and housing. In this conduct they betrayed their central responsibilities to the people. This failure, and the evidence of growing and unaddressed inequality in power and wealth, also fuelled the resentment that augmented the support for Populist political parties.
As media interest turns increasingly to the United States election, and more distantly to the next Federal Election in Australia, what lessons might be learned from France and Great Britain? The most chastening conclusion is that the coming years will continue to be favourable for Opposition parties and their leaders. The economic and political conditions that have made life difficult for most people in the world are unlikely to improve significantly. This leads to the anxiety and resentment that are likely to be turned against the existing government. In this climate opposition parties are able to sharpen public anger by negative campaigns that focus on the defects of the government. They can then go to the election without concrete policies to address the conditions that have made people resentful.
If opposition parties inflame resentment by exploiting differences in the community based in race, religion, ethnic origin and cultural attitudes, their campaigns can be very effective. Such exploitation of division has so far been a feature of the Trump campaign in the United States election. Its potential for being an occasion of violence has also become evident. We can also expect it also to dominate the next Federal Election campaign and perhaps the next British election. In these conditions even a party elected with a large majority in one election will not be guaranteed victory in the next. If this cycle continues people will move from disillusionment with their government to hope that the opposition party that will be better, and again turn to disillusionment. With each downwards cycle, however, trust in the government and the democratic institutions that it represents will be further eroded.
The present condition of politics certainly does support this gloomy prospect. But it is depends on the decisions that human beings make, and therefore is not inevitable. It can be reversed if one or each party commits itself to honesty in its assessment of the conditions of the nation that breed resentment, honesty in describing it, honesty in its engagement with Parliament and the nation, and decency in all its relationships. This honesty must begin before the election in naming the challenges facing the nation, the resources and policies needed to meet them, and promises of appropriate action.
'In Australia, [honesty] means acknowledging publicly and promising to address the major root of resentment: the gross imbalance of wealth and the imbalance of power over policy enjoyed by the wealthy.'
In Australia, that means acknowledging publicly and promising to address the major root of resentment: the gross imbalance of wealth and the imbalance of power over policy enjoyed by the wealthy. A firm commitment to reform taxation and investment policies so that burdens are shared equitably in the community is an urgent need and therefore a test of honesty. So is an unequivocal commitment to address climate change.
Such honesty, of course, can be costly. It arouses opposition in those adjudged to exploit the economic system and those who stand to lose by change. Those who see politics as a as a practical, rather than an idealised, serious human activity will always regard honesty as a suicide note.
Many people who want the benefit of increased public expenditure on services will resist any rise in taxes to fund them. Honesty demands brave action by Governments, a concerted effort to commend its policies, and a readiness to risk electoral defeat.
Losing elections is always painful. A loss that follows a lack of honesty is even more humiliating and demoralising. Honesty even in defeat, however, can build a platform for lasting reform.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street, and writer at Jesuit Social Services.