Between Populism and Masochism
July 23rd 2008 23:08
I thought panda’s were supposed to be an endangered species, but it seems like that’s all we have been getting lately.
Oh wait! I don’t mean panda as in the bear from China! I mean pander, as in dancing to someone elses tune because you like the sound of applause. We might not be surrounded by the animal but we just can’t get enough of the pandering, self-indulgent politician. And there is none more self-indulgent than Kevin Rudd. If there ever was a man who liked the sound of his own voice, it is that man. People call him a people pleaser, which is true to an extent. Kevin Rudd will go places and say whatever he thinks will get him some cheap applause. It’s media management that is simple when you look at it from their perspective. You don’t want footage out there, after all, of your guy standing up and saying something to a rowdy chorus of booing and jeers. It may make sense, but the question is whether or not endless populism is a good trait for a Prime Minister to have?
I have to admit, I’ve never seen the big uproar about being a populist. I mean, a populist is someone who caters to the wishes of the people, and isn’t that what democracy is about: putting someone in power who will reflect the majority opinion. In it’s purest form, that is what populism is and I would be unapologetic to be a populist. But populism in practice is a corrupted form. Genuine populism because it is the wishes of the people is one thing. But there comes a point where populism conflicts with what is right.
Rudd spent yesterday up in Arnhem Land, in the Northern Territory, meeting with Aboriginal leaders about the way forward for Anglo-Australian and Aboriginal relations post the symbolism of ‘Sorry’ day. Local leader Galarrwuy Yunupingu delivered to him a petition asking for the ‘self-evident’ rights of Aboriginal people to be acknowleged in the Constitution, and Kevin Rudd agrees. He wants a preamble but he wont say when. Which, of course, gets a lot of applause while only worsening the problem.
When you think it through, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to have a section on Aboriginal rights in the Australian Constitution. Bear with me before you start firing off angry emails! All I mean is that what we are looking towards in the future, now that the long-awaited apology has been made, is the unification of the Aboriginal and Anglo-Australian communities. That is the definition of reconciliation, after all. To distinguish forever in the nation’s blueprint that there are difference between the two and that the Aboriginal people have rights separate to those of Australian’s is a recipe for further segregation and for a continuation of the time-honoured tradition of the two social groups speaking past each other and missing the point entirely.
The point is that we have said sorry. And we don’t want it to happen again. So no, we shouldn’t differentiate between white Australia and Aboriginal Australia in the Constitution with a different set of rights. Apart from maybe a mention of Aboriginal people as the traditional owners of the land and their role in the early history of the nation, there shouldn’t be any talk about different ethnicities and subgroups of the nation in the foundation document of the country. Aboriginal people may call for it. Certain white Australian protest groups may ask for it. But in this case, answering these calls will only serve to hurt the people that want to be helped. I don’t think we need a bandaid short term solution that would only serve to turn the issue into a gaping wound established in the Constitution itself.
But that’s too much like common sense, so the question is whether Kevin Rudd will listen to the Aboriginal leaders and move towards putting their requests to a referendum. The answer is probably not. He will support it. He will wind up the crowd and say that is with them on it. But he wont put it to referendum because he couldn’t take the loss. Australian’s have a tendency of turning down things that come before them on referendum and referendums are notoriously hard to win anyway. Turning down “Aboriginal rights” would make the country look bad and make him look bad for running the country, despite the fact that it’s just not a good idea.
Kevin Rudd is a populist. But he’s not a masochist.
Oh wait! I don’t mean panda as in the bear from China! I mean pander, as in dancing to someone elses tune because you like the sound of applause. We might not be surrounded by the animal but we just can’t get enough of the pandering, self-indulgent politician. And there is none more self-indulgent than Kevin Rudd. If there ever was a man who liked the sound of his own voice, it is that man. People call him a people pleaser, which is true to an extent. Kevin Rudd will go places and say whatever he thinks will get him some cheap applause. It’s media management that is simple when you look at it from their perspective. You don’t want footage out there, after all, of your guy standing up and saying something to a rowdy chorus of booing and jeers. It may make sense, but the question is whether or not endless populism is a good trait for a Prime Minister to have?
I have to admit, I’ve never seen the big uproar about being a populist. I mean, a populist is someone who caters to the wishes of the people, and isn’t that what democracy is about: putting someone in power who will reflect the majority opinion. In it’s purest form, that is what populism is and I would be unapologetic to be a populist. But populism in practice is a corrupted form. Genuine populism because it is the wishes of the people is one thing. But there comes a point where populism conflicts with what is right.
Rudd spent yesterday up in Arnhem Land, in the Northern Territory, meeting with Aboriginal leaders about the way forward for Anglo-Australian and Aboriginal relations post the symbolism of ‘Sorry’ day. Local leader Galarrwuy Yunupingu delivered to him a petition asking for the ‘self-evident’ rights of Aboriginal people to be acknowleged in the Constitution, and Kevin Rudd agrees. He wants a preamble but he wont say when. Which, of course, gets a lot of applause while only worsening the problem.
When you think it through, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to have a section on Aboriginal rights in the Australian Constitution. Bear with me before you start firing off angry emails! All I mean is that what we are looking towards in the future, now that the long-awaited apology has been made, is the unification of the Aboriginal and Anglo-Australian communities. That is the definition of reconciliation, after all. To distinguish forever in the nation’s blueprint that there are difference between the two and that the Aboriginal people have rights separate to those of Australian’s is a recipe for further segregation and for a continuation of the time-honoured tradition of the two social groups speaking past each other and missing the point entirely.
The point is that we have said sorry. And we don’t want it to happen again. So no, we shouldn’t differentiate between white Australia and Aboriginal Australia in the Constitution with a different set of rights. Apart from maybe a mention of Aboriginal people as the traditional owners of the land and their role in the early history of the nation, there shouldn’t be any talk about different ethnicities and subgroups of the nation in the foundation document of the country. Aboriginal people may call for it. Certain white Australian protest groups may ask for it. But in this case, answering these calls will only serve to hurt the people that want to be helped. I don’t think we need a bandaid short term solution that would only serve to turn the issue into a gaping wound established in the Constitution itself.
But that’s too much like common sense, so the question is whether Kevin Rudd will listen to the Aboriginal leaders and move towards putting their requests to a referendum. The answer is probably not. He will support it. He will wind up the crowd and say that is with them on it. But he wont put it to referendum because he couldn’t take the loss. Australian’s have a tendency of turning down things that come before them on referendum and referendums are notoriously hard to win anyway. Turning down “Aboriginal rights” would make the country look bad and make him look bad for running the country, despite the fact that it’s just not a good idea.
Kevin Rudd is a populist. But he’s not a masochist.
| 25 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
