verging_on_random

Ethics and politics

Yes I know, ‘political ethics’ is an oxymoron. However, I don’t accept that it was always thus. In fact, I believe that political amorality and fashionable cynicism have increased hand-in-hand to degrade the political process substantially over the last 20 years.

Spin and exaggeration may always have been part of political discourse, but it is only recently that deliberate, blatant lying has come to be regarded as routine tactics; something that the parties do well or badly but in either case do not feel any compunctions about doing in the first place.

I’m not referring here to lies of the variety that say A didn’t occur when the speaker knows that A actually did occur. Fortunately we still have some vestiges of ethics in our political system and people caught out in this kind of lie can expect to pay a price … which explains why politicians still go to extreme lengths to establish ‘plausible deniability’, a condition which allows them to plead ignorance and thus innocence of lying, even if (as in the AWB affair) it makes them look comprehensively thick and careless. The latter have never been considered serious flaws in National Party politicians.

No, the sort of lies I am talking about are lies of the kind that assert that if A happens, then B will happen. The recently defrocked prime minister built a dazzling structure of lies of this nature about terrorism and Australia’s involvement in American imperialist adventures in the Middle East. Defeat in Iraq, he insisted (whatever ‘defeat’ means in a country which was thoroughly defeated four years ago and is under the control of a US occupation force) would mean that the terrorists would be ‘emboldened’ all throughout South East Asia, thereby increasing the threat to Australia many times over. Needless to say there wasn’t the slightest evidence to support these extraordinary fabrications, nor were there any intuitive grounds to accept his speculative hypothesis. It was all a work of fiction, a pack of lies invented to justify a dreadful mistake by Bush with which Howard chose to associate himself.

The casual way in which politicians have come to accept that these kinds of lies are all part of the rough and tumble of Australian electioneering was brought home to me last night while watching the election coverage. Nick Minchin on the ABC, at about 8.25pm, said words to the effect that ‘interest rates worked very well for us last time’. I was so struck by his words and the nonchalant way he uttered them that I made a note at the time.

What Minchin said in effect was that the Liberal Party in 2004 dreamed up a lie to use as an election tactic - a lie which had no foundation in fact or theory and which they knew to be a lie. The lie, if you recall, was that the Liberals would keep interest rates at record lows and that interest rates would always be higher under Labor. It was apparent from Minchin’s demeanour that he felt no shame at having used this tactic, nor any special pride either - it was just an everyday part of campaigning.

Lest I be perceived as bashing only one side in this argument, let me quickly add that the ALP engaged in exactly the same kind of lying in this campaign. Their target was WorkChoices. Against all the evidence, and defying the stated commitment of the whole Howard cabinet, they stated repeatedly that if re-elected, Howard’s mob would amend WorkChoices in unspecified but dreadful ways. Like the Libs’ use of interest rates in 2004, this was a deliberate attempt to have gullible voters believe something which the politicians had no reason to believe was true - in fact, had every reason to believe was not true.

Does any of this matter? After all, we are constantly bombarded with spin and exaggeration and outright lies in the form of corporate advertising. It’s arguable that citizens in the 21st century should be able to tell the difference between truth and propaganda, and if they can’t, well they deserve whatever comes to them.

I don’t believe we should accept that cynical argument, at least with regard to statements made by members of parliament and especially by members of the government. Unlike actors in television commercials for breakfast cereal, MPs hold privileged positions in society. They have been given what is known as legitimate authority - power that resides in the positions they hold independent of their personal qualities. Citizens expect that they will not abuse that power and citizens are entitled to have that expectation. For society to function effectively, all holders of legitimate authority, be they police officers or public servants or judges, have a duty to use that authority in the interests of those who have bestowed it on them, namely ordinary Australians. Once individuals use their legitimate authority for their own self interest, the implicit contract that allows a free society to operate effectively begins to fray … as it certainly has in this country over the last several years.

Abuses of authority cause consequences. In politics, they inspire a race to the bottom, until the kind of vicious stunt pulled by Jackie Kelly’s mob last week is all part of the great game. Often this generates a response from concerned sections of the community and inevitably, when voluntary adherence to a code of ethics breaks down, the community resorts to increased levels of regulation. While this might cause a temporary improvement, it transforms the whole issue of correct behaviour from an ethical one to a legal one, fostering the mentality that anything goes as long as a way can be found to evade legal punishment. Since the law can seldom keep pace with human ingenuity, the outcome is an endlessly growing amount of regulation and bureaucracy. Tax matters and traffic regulations are good examples.

Kevin Rudd and most of his cabinet are an unknown quantity. For a considerable time, they will not have to worry about any plausible threat to their electoral dominance. If they want to make a lasting contribution to the quality of Australian governance, they could do a lot worse than systematically restore proper standards of ethical behaviour not just in public administration, but in the manner in which they conduct party-political discourse.