|
Gregory Altreuter  I am a life-long participant in democracy. The family dinner table never failed to include a discussion of politics. In America, everything is political and we have the annual elections to prove it: local government, regional government, state government, and federal government.
Every town has its mayor and every county has its board and every state has its governor and the country has the President — and that’s just the executive branch. There is also a set of representatives; councillors; sometimes a senate; and a judiciary, some members of which, for different matters of law — family court, surrogate’s court, civil court, criminal court — may be elected while others are appointed. Deciding on a political party to support, whether election by election or as a kind of life choice, can affect the course of governance at each level for years at a time, even decades. I have voted in every election since I first became eligible to do so and, as a dual citizen (American and Australian) I am now doing it in two countries. Call it the effect of globalisation. A year or two after I moved to Australia, I had the opportunity to tour Parliament House in Canberra. As luck would have it, my guide was himself a political insider so, in addition to the various educational displays scattered throughout the public precincts, I got the perspective of someone with in-depth current and historical knowledge of the processes and players. Australia’s system of government was deliberately modelled on both that of America and the UK, taking what was deemed to be the best of both systems. The checks-and-balances of the US have been carefully structured into a Westminster style of parliamentary governance. It is brilliant and effective. I have my parochial objections, but nothing a republic couldn’t fix. In America, we don’t pay much attention to the political process of other countries, particularly other successful western democracies. We focus on the outcomes, if we focus at all. Until 2000, I couldn’t have told you who the Prime Minister of Australia was, but I have learned a lot since then and I’ve been aided in this by the contentious decisions undertaken by my governments since that time, energising my interest. Back in the States, the 2008 Presidential election season is already underway, a year ahead of schedule, capitalising on the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections, wherein the Democrats seized control of the legislature. The seemingly endless campaigning at the federal level has been a longstanding issue, which has now been taken to a new level. The current administration is only halfway through its second term and already the candidates are touring the country, holding debates among themselves, just to achieve the nomination of their respective parties to run for office. Meanwhile, the individual states have advanced the schedule. In the US, each of the 50 states holds a set of “primaries”; state-wide votes by the major parties to select delegates to a national convention, usually held in the summer of the election year, to nominate their candidates for President. Some states, most notably Iowa and New Hampshire, have become bellweathers because they have traditionally held their primaries early. Over the years, other states have changed their primary dates and, this year, even more have made such alterations, contending to be first in the nation. Some states may go to the polls so early as to make an annual voting enrolment requirement difficult to meet, especially for overseas citizens like myself. Luckily, my own home state, New York, has proven somewhat immune to the madness (as one of the biggest and most important northeastern states, New York is confident of its strength and influence). It’s often the more rural and less populous states who seek to increase their power on the national stage. This contrasts with Australia, although things have changed here, too. In the past, campaigning was limited to whatever period of time was available between the dissolution of Parliament and the Prime Minister’s selected date for the election. But the influence of America is felt even here, so that we are presented more and more often with the kinds of activities that make up an endless campaign. While the government pork-barrels, the opposition takes every opportunity to make its case public. Advertising, beyond public-interest matters, is ongoing and often negatively focused. And then there are the debates. These are particularly interesting because they are all-important in the States where candidates, especially for President, square off and try to distinguish themselves from one another. How different is Rudy Giuliani from Mitt Romney from Fred Thompson from John McCain and which of their differences matters among Republicans? Where is the important point of difference between Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, Barak Obama or Chris Dodd for Democrats? If you’re a Democrat, who would you rather see as your candidate depending on which selection may be made by the Republicans, and vice versa? Knowing your candidates well in the preliminaries can be essential in getting your side into office. It is again different in Australia, but becoming less so. The leader of the party, the person who is or would be Prime Minister, is selected by the party with no public input. Party-line voting is the norm, with an occasional “conscience vote”, and so it is with the public at large. Here is the situation, these are the issues, choose your party and vote Labor, Liberal, Green, Democrat, etc. Granted, the vote for Senate offers an opportunity to vote for individuals and the system of preferences lets you allocate your vote in such a way as to minimise the chance your least favourite party becomes the government, but you are voting for a bloc, in the end, more than for a person. Until the debate(s) happen and the “worm” has its say. I’m fascinated by the worm. It isn’t a feature of American television debates. In America voting is influenced on the day by television. (Incidentally, news reports of results on the east coast affect outcomes on the west coast, where the polls close three hours later.) Television news outlets swear every year to avoid “calling” the election, but still make their predictions early and often. But that’s on the day. Here in Australia, a studio audience tracks the performance of party leaders over the course of the debate, scoring the results and leaving the audience at home with an outcome that the rest of the campaign may never overcome, no matter what policy details are released. Finally, there is the issue of personality. Over his eleven years in office, John Howard has fostered a kind of cult of personality around his leadership. Simon Crean and Kim Beazley surely lacked Mr Howard’s indefinable appeal. No matter what policies were enacted or scandals erupted, Mr Howard has stood and has been elected again and again, his comeback unprecedented in Australian politics. He has thereby transformed the process, requiring Labor to select their own leader as much for his image as for his ability. Although many will go to the polls and vote the issues, the overall sense of the 2007 campaign is that this election is about John Howard versus Kevin Rudd, regardless of whether you live in their actual electorates. Swan-Costello, Vaile-Gillard, Turnbull-Garrett, the front benchers matter very little and have always been disposable to one degree or another, but eleven years is a very long time in power and makes John Howard a lightning rod and monumental obstacle to overcome, more than WorkChoices, more than interest rates, more than poverty, more than Iraq. We know the party policies, but we believe in Howard or we believe in Rudd. Australian politics may never be the same again… how exciting!
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
