Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

AUSTRALIA

The Coalition and the mandate myth

  • 11 October 2013

Since the Federal Election there has been much discussion of the idea that, because democracy means respecting the will of the people, elected members have a duty to support the government's 'mandate'. Accordingly, they need not inform themselves and act on their own judgment because the people have spoken. It would not have impressed Edmund Burke — the father of conservative political philosophy — who said this betrays, rather than serves, constituents.

Liberal Senator George Brandis supports the mandate theory. On Q&A for 9 September he said Labor has a duty to help repeal the carbon tax because 'it has got to respect the wishes of the majority'. As Attorney-General he is chief Government adviser on the law, including principles implicit in our system of government. Despite this, cynics might think he wants new senators to give Liberal bills an easy passage.

Public servants have a duty to obey the government; but although elected members are public officials they are not public servants. Like all citizens they must obey laws which give effect to policy, but there is no additional duty to assist the government to make laws and no duty not to repeal them.

The idea that popular opinion can impose a duty rests on a misunderstanding. It makes sense only from a sociological perspective, which sees morality through the eyes of someone describing the practice of a community of which he is not a member. From this standpoint we might agree that shared beliefs on moral issues constitute the morality — withholding our own opinion because we mean to clarify, not judge, their culture.

This detachment is not possible in ordinary moral disputes, where we appeal to values we see ourselves as sharing with others. When we argue from this 'internal' point of view we appeal to the values themselves, not the opinions others hold, or the interpretations they offer. In fact we appeal to these values to judge their opinions. Accordingly, when we say that a policy is unfair, or does more harm than good, we mean it is unfair or unwise, not that most people think it is; we mean this is what they should support and what the government ought to do.

The fact that Brandis thinks public opinion is itself a moral reason suggests a deep scepticism about values. The same might be said of Julie Bishop's criticism of Labor when it rejected Julia Gillard's policy on Palestine. It

Join the conversation. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter  Subscribe