The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 will no doubt be remembered for many things. I wonder if one of those will be that our political leaders collectively managed to win back the trust and legitimacy they squandered over the past couple of decades. I hope so — because as we are now seeing in this time of crisis, it really matters.
The past few days have seen Prime Minister Scott Morrison describe panic-shoppers as engaging in behaviour that is “ridiculous” and “un-Australian”. He also had a crack at the people who flocked to Bondi Beach in the recent warm weather for not taking seriously the requirements for physical distancing.
He is right on both counts. However, his message is blunted by the lack of authority attached to his office. This is part of a larger problem.
The government’s meta-narrative is now one in which responsibility for the nation’s fate is tied to the behaviour of its citizens. The message from our political leaders is clear: you — all of you, the people — must take responsibility for your choices.
Again, they are right. It’s just a terrible pity that the potency of the message is undermined by the hypocrisy of the messengers — a group that has refused to take responsibility for pretty much anything.
Consider the most recent case: the already infamous sports rort scandal, in which government ministers (including the PM) offered the “Bridget McKenzie” defence that “no laws were broken”. They wriggled and squirmed in an attempt to deflect any and all criticism. Ordinary Australians saw through the evasions, but put it all down to political “business as usual”.
I recognise that it is unfair to focus on a single incident as indicative of all that has happened to erode trust and legitimacy. McKenzie and co’s behaviour is just the most recent example of a longer, larger trend.
A more equitable reckoning would say to the whole of the political class that we are sick of your blame-shifting, your evasiveness, your self-serving hair-splitting, your back-stabbing, your blatant lies (large and small), your reckless (no, gutless) refusal to accept responsibility for your errors and wrong-doing, and your loyalty to the machine rather than to the people you are supposed to serve.
The split between ethics and politics was not always so evident. For Ancient Greeks, like Aristotle, each was a different side of a single coin. Ethics dealt with questions about the good for the life for an individual. Politics considered the good for the life of the community.
The connections were not accidental — they were intrinsic to the understanding of the relationship between people and the communities of which they formed a part. As Umberto Eco once observed, the ancient world was a place of depth populated by heroes. In contrast, we moderns are fascinated by glittering surfaces and find satisfaction in celebrities.
The shallowness of much of modern life has fed into our politics — an arena within which marketing spin too often takes precedence over substance.
Some seek to excuse this tendency by saying that our politicians merely reflect the society they represent. It is said that we should demand nothing more of political leaders than what we expect of ourselves.
Really? Is that really good enough?
Let’s write to our politicians, phone their offices, and bombard them with messages of encouragement. Let’s ask them to rise to the occasion — to prove to us (and perhaps to themselves) what they could be. Let’s appeal to the neglected idealist living buried beneath the callouses. Let’s tell them that they are needed; that they have a noble calling.
Let’s enrol them in our dream of a better democracy — one that truly serves the interests of its citizens. Let them be our champions. Let them drive out of their ranks anyone who refuses to be and do better.
Let’s imagine what it would be like if, at the end of this year, we were proud of our politicians and the quality of government they had offered us at a time of crisis.
Dr Simon Longstaff, AO, is a philosopher, focussing on applied ethics. He has been Executive Director of The Ethics Centre (formerly the St James Ethics Centre) since 1991.
Why does Longstaff suggest that we need leadership, when it is fairly obvious in his same writing that the failure of leadership might be an integral problem with the problem? To suggest we need more of the same leadership from the same failed leadership feeds into the paranoid publics mind, that we need a leader AT ALL. We Don’t have a leader and we do not need a leader to solve the problem, any more. UP TO YOU.
Great concept, no hope of it happening….
Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. If we all tell ourselves we are powerless, then we are telling ourselves the truth. UP TO YOU
Well put Dr Longstaff. This a chance to press the reset button and re-establish some legitimacy to the calling of Politician. A chance to rinse the slime from the system. Raise above the mere self serving too often displayed and show true leadership. Use these extraordinary times to rid all political parties of the stench of the back room boys, the faction bosses, the interior warlords, and revert back to something like representative democracy, not the farce we have now.
Start with a gesture. All politicians willingly declare a self imposed pay cut of say 50% for say 6 months (non-recoverable), a freeze on their golden handshake superannuation, and revert said superannuation funds to those like we mere mortals are forced to pay in to. Not some guaranteed return.
Show some leadership and fraternity. Show that our ‘leaders’ (I use the term under sufferance) are truly one with us plebs and that they too are being materially, emotionally, financially and spiritually effected by this crisis that they failed to plan for.
A much better article than I expected from the headline. But as good as I expected when I saw the author’s name.
It’s right to focus on the need for leadership (not just primarily our prime minister) and also to keep in mind our own personal responsibilities for our behaviour. These two are paramount.
But in Crikey I expected to see some reference to the responsibility of the Fourth Estate to change. The media must maintain its role as muck-raker, scandal-exposer and question-raiser. But the media has to drop its self-appointed role of nick-picker, gotcha star and belief that with an hour’s Googling they are as smart as – or smarter than – the Chief Medical Officer.
Without being a toady of the state, or the Government, I would prefer to see them prioritise their efforts to help us get through this crisis. When we are all (well, most of us) out the other side, they can go back to “but how does that square with what you said x months ago …”, “Shouldn’t we have more national consistency/a greater acknowledgement of the different needs of different communities” and the other boilerplate banalities that second-rate writers take for journalism.
You do not need brilliant expertise to choose the safest option, rather than one heavily influenced by economics or ideology….any attempt to prioritise money over life needs to be opposed vigorously, desperately even. And delay is manifestly deadly.
I might be missing something, but how were the people to know that there went to Bondi known about the overcrowding before they got there. And how would they know that the “limit” for the beach was exceeded?
What he should have done was closed all places of public gathering including the beaches in major cities or resorts. He is so busy worrying about upsetting his business constituency than pulling out all the stops to get in early.
Look at the hairdresser debacle. He didn’t want to shut them down because then he would have to stump up the money to get them through.
The shopping thing has been going on for weeks with nothing being done by him.
Busloads of scalpers have Arrived at supermarkets in the Latrobe Valley and Heyfield. All of these super-markets are now turning them away.
Both big and small businesses seem to understand the seriousness of the problem and have been taking decisive and helpful action – even the banks. It’s a pity our “CEO” doesn’t follow them.
It’s not his money, it’s ours.
Who is “he?” Which member of the National Cabinet are you singling out?
Every one of the new restrictions is the result of compromises, with the conclusion often reached hastily on-the-spot by politicians without first-hand knowledge of the business. No hairdressers in the National Cabinet – and it showed. But they changed their decision once they realised the implications. Still messy, still a compromise. What else do you expect?