Its been a while, but….
Like a disgraced samurai, the federal Liberal party leadership seems to feel the need to disembowel themselves. Despite not being a Liberal party supporter, I am amazed that the leadership feels the need to disrupt a ‘winning team’. Despite political or ideological question marks, the coalition’s dominance on the federal scene is unquestioned. Labor has been rife with petty power and factional struggles that simply weaken its position in the eyes of the voters. No doubt, the Liberal party would most probably win if an election was held today, or this week, and probably even this year.
For me, the issue of Howard ‘allegedly’ promising Costello the leadership of the Liberal party depicts one of the weakness of Australian democratic politics (even democratic politics in general), rather than a case of breaking promises. Transfers of power should be decided at election time, by the people, and not by the political party or cabinet in power at the time. Support from the backbench does not constitute the support of the Australian majority. Keating did the wrong thing back in the early nineties by orchestrating a coup against Hawke, and grabbing the reigns of power. If Costello wants to be the Prime Minister, his government should be elected by the people.
I rued the day that I would ever agree with something Bronwyn Bishop had to say, but she made a pertinent point on ABC’s ‘Lateline’ last night. Nomination for leadership of a political party is a democratic process, and is not simply a case of giving someone the mantles of power. Indeed, it stinks of totalitarianism. Bishop highlighted that should Howard give up leadership, there are many people in the Liberal party who would be interested in running for leadership; Costello has not gained the automatic right to become the representative of the Australian people.
In conclusion, I’m not for one moment suggesting that I’m privy to a better way of ‘doing politics’, just attempting to highlight what I perceive as a weakness. Just because it is permitted avenue to the prime ministry does not mean it is right. God help us, such a mechanism could allow Satan himself grab power (the thought of Tony Abbott as the Prime Minister brings biblical images of Revelations to the forefront of my mind). Pray to your saviour that this will never occur!
Tony has already expressed that his views are to right-of-centre to be accepted by the Australian public. Whether this is simply spin, or that he sees himself as an advising idelogue, I don’t know. As for the line of secession, waiting
Steven
July 11th, 2006
the longest shouldn’t make the job yours. It should be a decision made by the party as to who is the best to lead at that time. Who heads a party is not a decision for the Australian public, but of that party. Yes we may have voted for X1 to be our prime minister rather than X2, but we did vote for Y to be our elected party. The party shouldn’t have to go through another election before their term is complete, or at least a fair chunk.
There are lots of problems associated with selecting a new leader as well. You could force the government to call a snap election, but that doesn’t give the new guy much time to get his folio out to the public, harming the incumbent party. On the other hand, you could force the party to state who will become the next leader in these types of events (retirement etc). But that would put an unfair burden on the party to honour the line of secession. There is no way of knowing if the next in line may become disgraced, or fall out of favour with the public during the intervening period.
I’m not familiar enough with political systems to advise on a different mechanism either.
Steven
July 11th, 2006