Celebrating the art of the deal
Like the perfect alignment of the planets, a few weeks back
our three leading political parties were all simultaneously fighting – not each
other, but themselves.
Most prominently, the Liberal Party was fighting an
undeclared civil war, with Tony Abbott launching
grenades from the backbench as Malcolm Turnbull sought to exhume the corpse
of Robert
Menzies for use as a human shield. Then in the Labor Party Anthony
Albanese was showing a bit of leg to differentiate himself from the prim
buttoned-up Bill Shorten. And the Greens were struggling
to work out if they were the party of the middle-class doctor from
Melbourne or the socialist warhorse from Sydney.
On the surface these tensions appear to reflect the
individual circumstances of each party, and the Machiavellian struggle to
achieve and sustain leadership within them.
But there’s also a unifying theme that sits at the heart of
our political debate: pragmatism versus ideology. Let’s look at the tensions
through that lens.
In the Liberal Party, Abbott and Turnbull have put forward
contrasting visions for the party: Abbott’s Liberal Party is the standard-bearer
of social conservatism, while Turnbull’s Liberal Party is one that embraces
liberalism. In practice, this meant that as prime minister Abbott was rather
ineffectual at getting his agenda through the Parliament, while Turnbull has found
willing negotiating partners. Witness schools
funding, the restoration of the Australian
Building and Construction Commission, various savings
and the company
tax cut – each navigated through the Senate in a way that Abbott would not
(or could not) do.
Over in the Labor Party, Shorten has worked with the
government on matters where they see eye to eye. A slew of savings measures
were bundled together in an omnibus
bill and backed by Shorten, while he has sought to work with the government
on issues such as clean
energy and Indigenous
constitutional recognition. It is this pragmatism that has led to suggestions that Shorten should be more oppositionist,
inflicting on the government the same lack of cooperation that Abbott did on
the Rudd and Gillard governments. (Perhaps stung by these criticisms, Shorten
took a much tougher stance on school
funding, declining to negotiate with the government.)
And in the Greens tensions came to a head over that school
funding issue, where Richard Di Natale’s willingness
to negotiate with the government prompted dissent from Lee Rhiannon, whose hard-line
stance effectively torpedoed discussions. Di Natale’s willingness to engage
in talks with the government was part of a declared
approach of focusing on outcomes, which previously manifested itself on
issues such as pension
changes and Senate
reform.
![]() |
If we accept that its purpose is merely to assert the
superiority of your own political philosophy over those of your rivals in a
debating contest, then an ideologically pure approach make sense. But if it is
to achieve the practical implementation of policies that deliver benefits
consistent with your world view, then ideological purity is an indulgence you
cannot afford.
I suspect that in Abbott’s mind, Turnbull’s biggest offence
is not actually his political centrism (appealing to the “sensible
centre”, as Turnbull puts it) but his willingness to compromise in order to
achieve his agenda. To Abbott, a product of decades in politics and a
theological upbringing, conducting the argument is an end in itself; Turnbull, a
businessman, only sees benefits in the deals that are done.
The problem faced by the trio of pragmatist leaders demonstrates
the problem that sits at the heart of Australia’s political malaise. We have
come to valorise a stoic dedication to principles as a sign of genuine
commitment to a cause. Compromise, meanwhile, has become perceived as the tactic
of the weak and desperate, whose principles will yield to circumstance.
It wasn’t always this way. John Howard, though revered by
Abbott and his fellow travellers, knew the benefits of pragmatism. Stuck with a
hostile Senate for most of his time in Government, he cut deals with the
Democrats to get through his landmark reforms, including the first wave of
industrial relations reform and the GST. (Clearly those didn’t play out so well
for his negotiating partner.) Were Howard to try those same manoeuvres in the
current political climate he would not doubt have been pilloried by the hard
right of his party for not standing firm on every line of these policies.
But the masterful pragmatism of Howard’s era feels like a
distant memory. And we are all the poorer for the developments of the past
decade.
So long as we celebrate ideological bellicosity and
discredit pragmatic deal-making, our political system will be stuck spinning
its wheels. To get our political system working again we need to reframe
compromise.
How about this.
To be a pragmatist is to be a hard-headed leader who gets
things done despite difficult circumstances. A compromise reflects a focus on
outcomes rather than process. It demonstrates self-awareness. It is to be a
doer rather than a talker.
To be an ideologue is to be a stubborn zealot who is
prepared to sacrifice a quality outcome for smug self-righteousness. It involves
putting one’s intellectual vanity ahead of the public interest. It is the
product of a closed mind unwilling to examine its own assumptions. It is to
prefer talking to doing.
And pragmatism leads to enduring outcomes. If the government
of the day seeks to bludgeon through reform in the face of hostility from the
Opposition and crossbench, you can be sure that those reforms will be
undermined come a change in government. However, if the reforms achieve
bipartisan support or at least win significant backing from the crossbench they
will likely stick regardless of changing political winds.
(Of course, there are some circumstances when the posturing
of an ideologue is necessary to deliver the deal of a pragmatist. Strategically
statements of self-righteousness can strengthen one’s negotiating position
before sitting down at the table, while an early willingness to negotiate can
appear desperate. But much of what we have seen in recent years hardly counts
as “strategic” ideological stubbornness given it rarely actually leads to a
negotiation that might deliver a result.)
Our political system is designed to require compromise outcomes. The Senate voting system means no government is likely to ever achieve a majority, therefore an effective political leader needs to strike deals. The fact that voters have embraced minor parties in greater numbers than ever before suggests they rather like the idea of Senate crossbenchers holding the government of the day to account and forcing it to negotiate. (It has become political folklore that part of Howard’s undoing was his Senate majority from 2005, which led him to WorkChoices once a major constraint on his governing had been removed.)
It seems strange, then, that ideologically-driven politicians
theatrically despair at the Senate (think of Keating’s “unrepresentative swill”)
and seek to bludgeon their agenda through. For these so-called leaders the
strategy appears little more than bleating about the importance of your own
mandate or changing the electoral rules (a backlash usually results).
Instead we ought to look to Europe, where in many countries (a third, by
one count) minority governments are well established. As a product of both
the electoral system and political fragmentation, many European governments
rely on building and maintaining coalitions in order to achieve stability. In
the European context, negotiating one’s political agenda through the
legislature is evidence of political skill, maturity and judgement, and so is
rewarded rather than penalised. Politicians who seek leadership roles by
pledging zealotry are unlikely to get far.
Yes, Europe’s had its share of political problems, and yes,
it has struggled to achieve some necessary reforms. But its national
governments have navigated their way through waves of challenges – from immigration,
to economics, the security – and remained largely functional.
Turnbull, Shorten and Di Natale actually reflect that
approach, but such is the hostility to deal-making that they have opted to bury
their willingness to negotiate beneath some hairy-chested bravado. If only we
saw compromise in a more favourable light, as per much of Europe, these leaders would be able to burnish those credentials.
Instead they are being undermined by leaders who would
rather some ideological biffo over a good outcome.
Comments
Architectural Firms in Chennai
Architects in Chennai
Digital Marketing Company in Chennai
really it was an more interesting blog to read keep on updating you are focused on your topic without any deviation.really it looks good to read and inspiring to all those who has visited your blog.
DOTNET TRAINING IN CHENNAI
JAVA TRAINING IN CHENNAI
Hadoop Training in Chennai
Allergy Medicines
Ayurvedic Medicine For Immunity
Interior Designers in Chennai
Eldorado
Architectural Firms in Chennai
Psoriasis Shampoo
Herbal Shampoo
Dandruff Treatment
Antifungal Cream
Vitiligo Medicines
Herbal Shampoo
Dandruff Treatment
i have really enjoyed sharing your website. thank you so much for your sharing this document. this document more useful and improve our knowledge.
hadoop training in chennai
SAP Training in Chennai
SAP scm Training in Chennai
isoft innovations facebook
isoft innovations faq
isoft innovations about us
isoft innovations address
isoft innovations contact us
isoft innovations software company
isoft innovations chennai
isoft innovations employees
isoft innovations careers
isoft innovations consulting services
Python course in chennai
3D printing in Chennai
3D printing companies in Chennai
3D printing service Chennai
3D printing service in Chennai
Dear customer All of us suffer from problems at home difficult to solve and may pose a great danger to your life and life of those you love such as harmful insects dangerous, which threaten human life and the transmission of diseases and cause a lot of physical problems So provided theAl Manarah Company has all kinds of insects
شركة تنظيف منازل بالرياض
شركة تنظيف سجاد بالرياض
شركة تنظيف بالرياض
شركة تنظيف مجالس بالرياض
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
عزيزي العميل عندما تنتقل من منزل لاخر وتحتاج ان تنقل عفش واثاث منزلك
فعليك الاتصال بشركة متخصصة في خدمات نقل الاثاث والعفش لذلك شركة المناره افضل شركة نقل اثاث والعفش
في ازي قومت بي نقل اثاث من مكان الي اخر فقوم بي اران علي شركه المنارة
ليه خدمات المنزلية
شركة نقل اثاث بالخبر
ونحن سنكون سعداء جدا إذا تواصلت معنا لتنفيذ هذه المهمة مع ضمان كامل بسلامة الاثاث الخاص بك.
شركة نقل اثاث بالقطيف
نمتلك افضل عمالة مدربة علي نقل الاثاث والعفش
لان وقد اصبحت فكرة نقل الاثاث متبلورة امام عينيك فلم يعد مطلوب منك سوى اخذ قرار والاتصال بشركة نقل عفش في الدمام مناسبة تقوم بتنفيذ تلك العملية لك
شركة تنظيف بابها
تقدم لقم شركة المنارة لتنظيف المنازل ولفلل ولشوقق ول اصار ول زجاج ول رخام شركه المنارة افضل شركه في دمام شركه المنارةتقدم عمل مميز وعمل جيد وشغل نضيف ونقدم لقم ناس تبزل جهد فل عمل وقل دا في اقصا وقت تتخيل شركة المناره تقدم العرود بي منسبت عيد الفطر
شركة مكافحة حشرات بجازان
شركة المنارة تقدم افضل عمل ومضرب علي المكافحه الحشرات وفريق عمل ومميز شركة المنارة لي رش المبيادات ورشق انمل البيض ول مكافحه الحشرات شركتنا تتميز عن بقي اشركه في ازي جات تعمل صيانا لي االمنزل فقوم علي زر التصال علي شركة المناره
Logistics Software
Fleet Management Software
ERP Software Companies
Thank you for sharing.
Vehicle tracking system
Fleet management software
Data Science Online Training
Python Online Training
ខ្លា នាគ Online
Skip Hire Bourne
Skip Hire Kent
Skip Hire Stokeontrent
Skip Hire Northampton
Skip Hire Doncaster
Skip Hire Hull
Mini Skip Hire
Skip Hire Norwich
Skip Hire in Birmingham
Skip Hire Belfast