Directly Elected...
So Australia has a new Prime Minister today in Julia Gillard. Much
like the NSW State Government, the process went something like this:
didn't elect this Prime Minister". Julia Gillard even referenced this
herself in her press conference after her caucus installation. This was then followed by the more politically educated talking about
the Westminster system, and how we vote for our local member / party
representative, and that the majority party chooses their leader, and
thus the PM, in their own fashion. The problem with this argument is that it's only technically true.
This is how the system is designed and how, on occasions like this, it
works. But it is NOT how election campaigns are fought, and it's not
how the general public perceives the political system. It is a
lamentable lack of civic education, but like it or not, until the
political parties behave otherwise, or the general political education
level of voters is increased, it is how the system will be interpreted
in the mainstream. Aiming to expand knowledge is an honourable cause. Informing people of
how the system is designed and (on paper) works, is a noble fight. But
throwing ones hands up in exasperation at all "we didn't elect Julia",
or berating Gillard for her up-front disarming of the issue, only
serves to vent and does little to change perceptions. So next time someone complains about not having "elected our PM",
inform them of the actual system, but don't berate them for simply
learning by the example of the major parties.
4 comments
I gather you are implying that although there were people discussing the parliamentary system, there were precious few doing so in a manner that wasn't hostile to people who didn't know the parliamentary system? You go on to say "the problem with this argument" and I wasn't really sure where you were going with that. I gather the argument you are talking about is "this is how Australian parliament works/people who don't know how the Australian parliament works are idiots/therefore, "OMG YOU SO STUPID." I've yet to find a good argument that ends with the conclusion "OMG YOU SO STOOPID," which is why I think you are right and would champion you any day of the week.
The second thing you might say is that while the accusation "I didn't elect Julia" is not reflective of our system of election, there is something else that can be said which is a bit more tricky, I am thinking. That is, the comment "I didn't vote for the Labor Party on the basis that they would install Julia Gillard as the PM." While as a matter of policy (what you are calling "technically true," which I'm not really sure about but hey I'm very tired) people don't get a direct say in who their PM is, parties campaign nationally based on the policies being espoused by and through their leader. Thus, while there is no legal issue about who they elect, there might be an argument that it is a breach of confidence in the elected party with their voters as to who their leader would be. That is, if in line with other types of policies we see the leader of the party for a given term as a "campaign promise," while there is little legality in the breaking of campaign promises, there is a substantive breach or trust with the public when they do so, and that includes who the leader of a party will be for that term. With that said, someone might not be able to accurately say "they can't do this," as long as we continue (and most do) can with ought, it is valid enough to say "they ought not to do this, because they promised me, the voter something else." People get awful caught up in these situations with the presupposition that everything is about law and parliamentary rules, but the reality is I'm sure most people are just complaining that its a bit of a dick move by Labor, for the above reasons.
It also means that the Westminster pundits have to get around a different problem, which is that although they can rightly say that Labor can do this, they'd have to strip away a large number of pretty good reasons people tick the box the way they do in order to look down their noses at people (not that they should anyway). It'd actually be a pretty bad state of affairs if people only voted for their electoral rep based just on their electoral rep, and not who the party leader was.
I'm going to stop now. Great post, sorry for being wordy, pedantic and overly analytic. Is what happens after a full day in thesis mode. :-)
It's not so much people laying the high and mighty smackdown, it's more the people that seem to be getting frustrated at the misinformation / lack of knowledge flying around. I haven't found very many people have actually been playing the "STUPID" card, which is a pleasant surprise really.
As to your second thing - yeah ... that's something I can dig. You do take on trust the fact that the team that is billed at the election is, by and large, what will still be around at the other end of the term. And I agree that sometimes people blur the line between "dick move" and "undemocratic", either through lack of knowledge or lazy words.
Last: "It'd actually be a pretty bad state of affairs if people only voted for their electoral rep based just on their electoral rep, and not who the party leader was."
Agreed.
I don't disagree with many of the points you make here. I want to have what I believe is a different argument. But the reason I initially believed I disagreed is because we have had discussions/arguments on a similar topic before - and I am on the side of those who get frustrated at the lack of education in the populace on matters of government and the Wash-minister system we operate under. And so at first I took this post as a personal attack, which it might be, but more likely isn't. And so I sat back and considered it. And I tried to work out what I disagreed with. And vented my 'that isn't how it works" frustration into posts on facebook about Australian Prime Ministerial history - and tried to make those posts informative rather than berating.
My frustration hasn't gone away, but I felt the need to reply. To say that you (and Nicko) have raised some very good points, which I largely agree with. But that just because I agree with what you're saying doesn't mean that I will no longer get frustrated with all the talk - from punters, pundits and politicians - that we 'elect' our PM (or even that we 'elect' parties). Chances are I will blog about it. Mostly likely on facebook coz I've got quite a diverse potential audience there (in fact I have been pleasantly surprised by some of the people who've reacted to my political posts).
So while this doesn't really contribute to the wider debate, I hope it helps show where I'm at in terms of this argument and us.
