Obviously I’m a passionate person with a lot of ideas about society, law, morals and so forth. And I care about people. So why don’t I get involved in politics? Are you kidding? The other night, I was watching Decadence, a six part series about modern culture in Australia, hosted by Pria Viswalingam. This week, Viswalingam looked into the apathy felt by most Australians towards politics.

That got me thinking about the strange nature of democracy. Certainly, it’s better than an authoritarian regime or a monarchy. But the problem is that you need people to stand for election. I think that the kind of people who wish to become politicians are not always necessarily the kind of people you want to represent you. Of course, that’s a generalisation, and there are some decent politicians who care, but they are in a minority.

I know humility is not de rigeur these days, but I think it can be a good thing. It reminds me of a scene from Prince Caspian by C. S. Lewis:

“Then Peter, leading Caspian, forced his way through the crowd of animals.

‘This is Caspian, Sir,’ he said. And Caspian knelt and kissed the Lion’s paw.

‘Welcome, Prince,’ said Aslan. ‘Do you feel yourself sufficient to take up the Kingship of Narnia?’

‘I – I don’t think I do, Sir,’ said Caspian. ‘I’m only a kid.’

‘Good,’ said Aslan. ‘If you had felt yourself sufficient, it would have been a proof that you were not. Therefore, under us and under the High King, you shall be King of Narnia, Lord of Cair Paravel, and Emperor of the Lone Islands…'”

Being humble means that you are always aware that your position is a privilege, not a right. And it means you respect the people whom you represent, and you do not take them for granted.

I have noticed many politicians are self-promoters. As I have explained in other posts, I am not a natural self-promoter. I always had difficulty at job interviews until reasonably recently. The funny thing about self-promoters is that, sometimes, they are not very good at listening to others; they are too busy talking about themselves and how good they are. They can forget to listen to the electorate, and they can forget who is responsible for granting them power.

During high school and university, the kind of people who ran for student elections were often the people who were motivated by power, not the well-being of their fellow students. During the Republican debate, this is why I favoured an Australian non-elected Head of State. I didn’t want someone who was motivated by a desire for political power. If the Head of State was appointed by the Government, you might get someone who was excellent but unlikely to be voted in by the people (think of Sir William Deane as Governor-General, for example).

In first year law school, we had our Law Students’ Society (LSS) elections. Ordinarily, many of the LSS totally ignored someone like me (what a nerd!). However, when the LSS elections were on, it was a different story. One day, some poor guy asked me to vote for him. I was in a bad mood, and I snapped. “I’ll vote for you if you actually acknowledge me as a human being!” I said. “How come for most of the year, all you guys ignore me and treat me as a lower life form, but now elections are on, suddenly you all decide to talk to me? Tell me why should I vote for any of you?” This poor guy looked totally gobsmacked, and for the rest of law school, he always went out of his way to say hello to me. I felt a little bad, but I hope he learned his lesson too: you can’t get away with being nice to the electorate only around election time.

I’m not good at toeing the party line. As I have explained in another post on this blog, I do not approach issues from a stereotypical left wing or right wing point of view. I refuse to remain confined to ideas of what I “should” believe, and try to be independent and objective. I also think it’s really important to be open minded. Sometimes, people on either side of politics think that certain views are morally superior to others, and do not question those views. It seems to me that this is a very dangerous belief; some of the worst wrongs can be done with good intentions. I enjoy blogging and law because I like to look at both sides of the story. But if you want to be a powerful member of a major political party, it seems that you have to be staunchly committed to your particular side of the story, and refuse to admit that anyone else’s story might have validity. I wish that politicians would admit it when they were wrong, and admit it when the other side makes a good point. To me that shows strength, not weakness.

The standard of debate in Parliament doesn’t fill me with confidence about politics. (Someone “in the know” tells me that all the real debate happens before the Bill gets to Parliament.) I vividly remember reading a Second Reading Speech of a Victorian Act to try to find out the reason for the enactment of the legislation. The debate contained a section where one member of parliament accused the relevant minister of failing to be “a propeller head“. For some reason, seven years later, that line is still engraved in my head as an example of infantile and meaningless debate. I have never found anything useful in the Second Reading Speeches for any State or Federal legislation.

I was having a discussion with friends a few months back about a judge who had made a personal comment about another judge in a judgment. Now I’m not a fan of the judge about whom the comment was made. But I thought it was entirely inappropriate to make a personal jibe within a judgment. Perhaps I sound overly sententious, but judges should not forget that they are there to make a judgment about factual and legal issues which are very important to the litigants. Judges have office because the public has given them a responsibility to resolve disputes, and it is inappropriate to use that power to express personal dislike of another judge. The same goes for parliamentarians. They should always remember that they are only in office by the grace of the Australian public. I really abhor stupid comments like Latham’s “conga line of suckholes”. Such comments are childish and not even particularly witty. I would prefer comments about the policies or the arguments, not the person. (This is also how I feel about blogging.)

So I won’t be standing for office any time soon. I’m not nearly Machiavellian enough. But I do know what I want from my politicians. I would like to see some humility and a recognition that to represent the Australian people is a privilege not a right. Even if you’ve been elected in for 20 years in a row, that doesn’t mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want.



Filed under Australia, parliamentary debate, politics

7 responses to “Politics

  1. iain

    My dad was a member of the ALP and he even rose to being secretary of his local branch and the conclusion that he came to was rather similar to yours LE No matter how full of idealism and good intention a person is by the time they have clawed their way into any position of power expediency has made its mark and they become that which they swore they would not become; a politician.

  2. Legal Eagle

    Yes, it’s a case of the job affecting your outlook and approach, despite your best intentions…a bit like being a lawyer!

  3. Armagnac Esq.

    Well, as a liberal party member said to me as we handed out how to vote cards at the last federal election, ” I’d vote for ya!”

  4. Legal Eagle

    🙂 Maybe you should go into politics? I’d vote for ya too!

  5. Anonymous

    have a look at

    http://www.tartarus.blog.com,to establish my view of politicians and http://www.auxarmes.blog.com for a plan to prune them.

    we dont have to leave our nation in the hands of bandits!

  6. If you are FOR something, you are automatically against the OPPOSITE of what you are for!
    That makes you a partisan and a radical in the eyes of those in the political center.
    The political center can’t make up their minds as to what they are for and what they are against!
    Those moderate centrist politicians, that sit on the fence, and try to figure out the way the wind is blowing, are the politicians that you have to look out for!
    They are opportunists, and they do not have the passion to be for anything or anybody except themselves!
    Of course many politicians and voters that take a moderate centrist position on issues, do so, because they are confused, and the reason that they are confused, is because they have a limited perception and understanding about the importance of the issues before them, …and they really don’t give a damn about political issues that does not involve their personal gain.
    Intelligent and progressive voters and politicians are passionate about the world around them and would like to make the world a better place.
    Moderates centrists are concerned about the well being of themselves and their crony friends, and the public be damned!
    They will compromise and then and sell out partisans for personal gain!
    They cannot be trusted!

  7. Pingback: An apposite quotation « The Legal Soapbox

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s