If the current leadership tussle in the labor party has demonstrated anything, it’s that politics in Australia is not the most impressive affair.
And if we needed any further confirmation, we need only look as far as last year’s ALP conference, or the political machinations around refugee policy, or simply the results of the latest – or any – news poll.
I would argue politics is not that impressive anywhere else, either. But for now, let’s look at Australian politics and what we may do to make things a bit “better”.
First, let’s ask some challenging questions. At Deakin University’s Democratising Governance symposium in November, the University of Sydney’s Professor Simon Tormey, asked whether representative governance was an “exhausted paradigm”.
I would also like to play the agent provocateur. Given that we are confronted on a continual basis with politics, the requirement to vote, and the need to advance somehow collectively, we would expect that this process would be more sophisticated. But our electoral systems significantly fail to please us, the voting public.
German academic Bernhard Wessels argues that although representation is marginally working, it is still not popular and still not seen by voters as a good vehicle for democratic politics.
So what can be done about this?
First, I think politicians (that is, any eligible individual wishing to run for office) should be required to go through a robust, difficult and internationally-recognised educational program. Doctors, dentists, teachers, lawyers, veterinarians, and a number of other vocations are required to do so. Why not politicians?
As a concerned citizen of this world and democracy theorist, I reason this would pose a unique chance for the potential improvement of politics and political representation. This program could have its own form of oath taking (let us call it the Socratic Oath because of Socrates’ interest in his society) like doctors have with Hippocrates.
Recent graduates could become residents with different non-self-selected political parties (that is, they should rotate through different parties and bureaucratic offices like certain doctors or teachers do with different institutions). And we could add another body for the review of personal ethics and accountability of politicians, which is again similar to practices in other vocations. We can argue that this is a Weberian approach to literally viewing politics as a vocation.
Second, I think voters should undergo some form of standardised training and testing, on top of mandatory voting. I recognise the main opposing argument to this is that individuals should not be forced to do something – and fair enough. Individuals should be able to cast a protest vote or not vote at all by registering their preference to abstain. But that registration should be made and voting or not voting should not be avoided because that weakens the formal representational system.
Those eligible to vote should participate in community or possibly even online training about how the political system works, what different systems there are, how to vote strategically, and how to participate politically outside of the institution of voting. To ensure maximal retention, we should be testing our electors. We have to prove ourselves worthy drivers to operate a vehicle so why not prove ourselves worthy voters to “operate” a political system?
My defence of this argument is that I think it will force the ALP, the Liberal Party and other political parties (like the Greens) to change from above (with us as citizens and our new critical edge in decision-making) and below (or political parties and their possible requirement to accept only better-trained and well-educated new members).
It may also lead to the positive growth of quality in Australia’s democracy. We could even argue for higher minimum standards when elections are being conducted. If a government wins a majority on, in this example, 51% of the vote – in performance standards that is tantamount to a failure. Should we then not keep on trying, through discussion and subsequent votes to achieve an 80% mark for a government to hold a majority?
In some systems that can be rated as an “A” (success!).
We need to focus on building both citizens and politicians in such a way as to lead to the improvement of politics in Australia and beyond.
Join the conversation
Comments (23)
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Yep, all that and PAY THEM LESS. There's clearly no shortage of candidates for the job, so why the high wages? Pay 'em what we pay nurses.
Jean-Paul Gagnon
(Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)
Wage parity for MPs is indeed an issue and there's a monstrous literature on the subject - unfortunately most of it locked away behind pricey journal doors. I'd encourage you to read Lain's comment (if I may). Based on my paltry understanding of one major argument in that body of literature, paying politicians less increases the likelihood of corruption, shirking, and poor performance. That being said, the same effect may occur by paying politicians more as it ostensibly encourages 'wealth-seekers…
show full comment
Coacheecayoo
(logged in via Twitter)
"Those eligible to vote should participate in community or possibly even online training about how the political system works, what different systems there are, how to vote strategically, and how to participate politically outside of the institution of voting."
This 'training' should be part of high school curriculum.
Jean-Paul Gagnon
(Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)
Yes, civics education is something that I worry about across several countries and regions. Does anyone know of any comparative research being conducted in civics education?
Also, how do you feel about increasing non-partisan civics education qua voter training in high schools? Is there enough time for this at present, what resources would it need, and in short how feasible could it be?
Iain Wicking
Director (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Paying them less is hardly the answer. Having a nation run by 'talented amateurs' is an issue though along with the consequences.
Individuals that run for public office are those that want to do so are probably not the most capable in society. Many talented people form carers elsewhere that are more rewarding. They would not consider politics for not just the monetary reward aspect but more the emotional overheads associated with playing party politics. For instance I and many, many others would…
show full comment
Jean-Paul Gagnon
(Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)
Yes, everyone of your points is palpable and of great concern. There's a huge amount of published research on many of the subjects you brought up but we still can't seem to take these great models across into practice. Well, to be fair, in certain areas this is happening but it's still piecemeal and unimpressive.
If you don't mind, I'd like to focus on your point about long-term goals. This was one of 7 'endemic governance problems' I identified in my doctoral thesis (that seems so long ago now…
show full comment
Iain Wicking
Director (logged in via email @gmail.com)
The long term aspects of public policy formulation and resource allocation are of real concern due to a number of factors -
One is the waste of public resources due to 'short term' mentality and chopping and changing of 'policies' and an inability to critical assess broader societal impacts such as housing provision, transport, health as you commented on.
The other factor is the one you mention is budget allocation. My view is that government at all levels should have some form of 'priority…
show full comment
Jean-Paul Gagnon
(Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)
Yes, I fully agree. I'm glad to know there's another C. W. Mills aficionado here! I read his work a few years ago and it has had a lasting impact. I can only hope that we will press for very specific and robust changes and start building our Politics 2.0!
William Bruce
Artist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
"Tests for politicians” a bad idea. Thomas Edison was a school dropout and so it goes. In any case a very large percentage of our politicians are lawyers, Doctors, Scientists so ARE supposedly educated. This doesn't mean they are any good at improving the running of the huge Business of Govt. & Country.
Perhaps it means they can regurgitate what they are "supposed to" in tests but doesn't mean they can think or come up with better solutions does it? Doesn't mean they aren't Goddies or Bolshies…
show full comment
William Bruce
Artist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
PPS You refer to "underwhelming" politicians but for what it is worth I note Tony Abbot is a Law & Economics Graduate, a Rhodes Scholar and an Iron Man and a husband and parent.
He has also been in Cabinet level Politics for many years AND, apart from his political service, has done a substantial amount of voluntary public service.
I don't agree with everything he has said or done, or anyone else for that matter, but it makes one wonder how the rest of us measure up?
John Harland
bicycle technician (logged in via email @gmail.com)
The Netherlands has a training course for its politicians.
However training or education is a totally different concept to testing. Shades of the general conflation of the polar opposites of mandation and encouragement of the use of bicycle helmets.
Testing is always to some degree subjective and contrary to democracy. If democracy is seen as the problem, consider whether it might be because we have too little of it, rather than too much.
Education in democracy and government should be for everyone, as part of our schooling. We need to educate voters and politicians alike.
jim morris
(logged in via email @yahoo.com)
My first instinct is to say pay them a lot less! But then it becomes apparent that governance is essential and quality people required.
That leads to the ridiculous question of what is considered quality in a person representing the community. Honesty and intelligence would count. But also humanity and imagination. Reliability, punctuality and commitment may also count.
Nowhere in the entire federal parliament would you find such a person. Pay them nothing!
William Bruce
Artist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)
PS I think we ought pay politicians far more in order to get the most capable people in there.
I think perhaps approx. $350k or what a top QC gets. This would be microscopic fraction of Govt. spends and they will continually save Billions in waste. And thus they can reduce taxes which create unemployment.
David Collett
(logged in via Twitter)
A standardised international test would definitely be helpful but doing work experience in political parties would produce more of the same.
Rather, the work experience should relate to the portfolio you intend to hold. Why do our healthcare and education workers have to tolerate Labor and Liberal "shuffling in" ministers to those two portfolios from other areas? Why can't we have Health ministers and Education Ministers who are respected in their professions even outside of politics?
The testing above does not screen for 'conviction'. If representative democracy is about about having no opinion and no beliefs and just doing what your electorate wants Right Now according to the mood whipped up by the media then democracy is not in our best interests…yet.
Jean-Paul Gagnon
(Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)
Yes, this is true and a lot of attention has been given to the need for representatives not to be swayed by the passions of interest groups. It is also very difficult, despite frequent opinion polling using 'the latest' methods in metrics, to understand what a particular electorate wants as these can change almost as if over night. If we do get a good snapshot, this often doesn't fit well with the cross-party policy and the rep might get driven into conformity by the whip. As you pointed out, there…
show full comment
Jean-Paul Gagnon
(Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)
I have just noticed that my recommendation for a 'Socratic Oath' is parochial. Does anyone have a suggestion for a political philosopher from Arab, Chinese, African or indigenous histories and or discourses that we can use instead of Socrates?
Also, I thought this might be of interest: '99 stupid things the [Canadian] government spent your money on' http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/01/05/99-stupid-things-the-government-did-with-your-money/.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Jean-Paul - Lao Tzu springs to mind so fast that time almost reversed. In fact, the Tao To Ching is full of advice for political leaders.
Perhaps all aspiring politicians should study the Tao To Ching. I think we're onto something here...
David Collett
(logged in via Twitter)
Lorna good suggestion, will look up that book. At the NGV-I there is a timeline comparing events in China with the rest of the world. When Jesus was born (or alive), in China there was already a national meeting of scientists. More wisdom in politics could be a very useful thing…:)
Jean-Paul Gagnon
(Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)
Thanks Lorna (if I may) I will have to closely scrutinize the Tao To Ching - unfortunately in English as my Mandarin is rather limited and my formal Mandarin so poor as to be near useless! I think we could definitely change the requirement of the Socratic Oath to the Tzutic Oath (or someone else's certainly better suggestion!).
David (once more if I may), could you tell me more about the NGV-I?
David Collett
(logged in via Twitter)
http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/
the timeline is on the south side of level 1 of the international gallery which is the one on St Kilda Road.
Jean-Paul Gagnon
(Honorary Research Fellow (HKIEd), Democratic Theory at Hong Kong Institute of Education)
Fantastic! Thank you!
Alex Lamb
Newsroom Assistant (logged in via email @gmail.com)
you want to educate politicians more but voters seem to prefer the dumbest ones..they know the worse they behave the more popular they'll be..
James Walker
(logged in via Facebook)
The reason politicians are so unpopular is they are so unrepresentative - and this proposal would make this worse.
The labor party used to be the worker's party - a place for the cream of the working class to rise. Now it's a mess of third rate university hacks. Ben Chifly was an engine driver! And still remembered on both sides of politics as a great man.