The Lost Art of Compromise
In trying to make sense of the decline in the standards of political behaviour in this country one way to understand it is to suggest that it is in part due to a shift towards absolutism, and away from the art of the compromise, and that the unwillingness to compromise has driven attacks on the checks on power that need to exist within our system of government in an attempt to reduce them.
If as they say, politics is the art of the compromise, suggesting compromise is a form of art, then where does that leave Australians who are known more for their love of sport, than of art?
The unfortunate consequence of the Australian love of sport is that the winner take all mentality of sport is now applied to politics, with consequences not just for those who don’t win but for all of us through the ugly behaviour now prevalent.
The epitome of our society’s unwillingness to contemplate compromise is the removal several years ago of the possibility of a draw in rugby league: the idea that two teams can finish a contest as equals considered unthinkable. The application of this thinking to politics has been disastrous.
The shift towards absolutism has led to greater and more vitriolic clashes over policy because the previous approach of a policy being modified as part of the process of it being implemented is no longer acceptable, instead, what occurs is a policy is presented with the expectation that it will be implemented in full, and therefore the policy must be defended in it’s entirety, or it must be opposed, completely.
The shift away from compromise creates an expectation that a person in a leadership role should be able to ‘get their way’, and failure to do so is seen as a failure of leadership. The understanding of how our system of government should operate has been simplified, eliminating the nuances that were inherent in the system, thereby shifting towards a more autocratic style and a ‘winner takes all’ approach by the players, which has become anticipated and accepted more widely.
A consequence of the unwillingness to compromise, and the desire for a policy to be implemented ‘complete’, without modification, is the inexorable elimination of the various checks that are essential elements in the make-up and operation of the Australian political system.
The idea inherent in placing checks and balances within our system of government, directly contradicts the idea that one person / one group, have (or has) all the answers, and therefore they should be given the freedom to implement their policies without them being ‘watered down’. Within our system it is intentional that policies presented by one person will be ‘watered down’, in their language, modified & improved in my language.
To change the formal checks and balances requires changes to the constitution and therefore is rarely done. But, the weakening of the informal checks on power is much easier to achieve and therefore has been occurring for some time. The erosion of the informal checks on power is a consequence of the unwillingness to compromise, and subsequently contributes to the deplorable current state of political behaviour.
Examples of informal checks on power are NGOs and whistleblowers as each of them play a role in shaping policies, and the power of each of them have been eroded over time.
Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) play an advocacy role for the causes they support, often leading to criticism of government policy. The outcome of criticism by NGOs will be a refinement of policy, but this is not considered an improvement by people who want to implement their policy untouched by others. As discussed here and here, Governments have deliberately attempted to diminish the ability of NGOs to question government. NGOs are seen as independent from party politics, and are seen as having expertise in their area of concern: removal of their voice from policy formulation allows either side of politics to claim opposition to a policy is merely ‘idealogical’, and therefore can be shouted down.
Whistleblowers, through their release of information that informs public debate, also provide a check on power by allowing flaws in policies to be revealed. Recently the government introduced legislation targeting whistleblowers as described here. This is an attempt to limit the information available in the public domain for analysing policy as it contradicts the government’s position.
Silencing people who worked on Manus island through restrictive legislation is a removal of an informal check on power. The power of politicians to sustain a particular policy is in a sense unchecked due to a lack of information that challenges the assumptions underpinning that policy.
Remarkably, in the past the national broadcaster, the ABC, also acted as a check on power. Remarkable given the role national broadcasters play in other countries spreading propaganda in support of a government.
When a Prime Minister rings up his mate, who he has appointed to be the head of the ABC, and tells him to sack a journalist for publishing a story he didn’t like – that is an attempt to remove a check on his power. The appropriate response from the head of the ABC would be to tell the PM to pull his head in, and express full support for the journalist. This is what it means to have a check on power. Failure to do so by the chair of the ABC shows either a complete absence of understanding of his role in our political system, not just his role in running a media organisation, or a complete disregard for his role.
What would the world look like if compromise was normal, and not considered a form of weakness?
There would be less expectation from the participants (ie elected politicians), their supporters, and the spectators (us), that ‘success’ is defined as ‘getting your way’. True, one reason you join a political party and seek election is so that you can project your views onto future laws. But that noble sentiment needs to be countered by the aversion to having a concentration of power, if the expectation were different, such that it was expected that policies would be varied based on input from others than there would be less belligerence and more advocacy.
There would be less secrecy, with fewer reports commissioned but never released. If we accept that one person doesn’t have all the answers, then there is less shame in a report highlighting that there are issues with a policy and it needs to be re-visited. What we will admire is not one person’s capacity to ‘be right’, but rather to manage the process, to change course as new information is obtained, to have the capacity to understand and explain the consequences of a policy, rather than issue glib one-liners. Currently, any adjustments to policies are seen as a failure of leadership, as though pig headed obstinacy is the only measure of a leaders capability.
What we see now is belligerence: with the belligerence aimed at removing checks on power. There were always clashes of egos and verbal jousting, but it was conducted within a framework of respect for the institutions of government. The major driver behind much of the poor behaviour in politics now exists because there are rewards to removing the checks on power.
If we are to make politics a sport, rather than art, we would be better served if more of us actually participated, in both sport and politics,; instead of merely cheering and booing from the sidelines, and then we would remember and appreciate the dictum that relates to both sport and politics: it is not enough to play by the rules, one must also observe the etiquette.
