The interregnum has ended with a government stitched together. Many of us will charitably wish it well, but sensibly refrain from putting our own money on its survival. But we should be grateful for the fortnight we have been given for reflection on Australian political life in the light of the election result.
The result showed conclusively only that neither major party attracted enough support to govern in its own right. But the increased support for minor parties and independents and the increased informal vote suggested that many people were alienated by the campaigns of both parties.
Among the publicly articulate, at least, there was also evidence of alienation from the way in which politics is now conducted in Australia. It seemed to be narrowly focused on winning elections and then forcing through populist policies. Many saw in the parliamentary charter of conduct, to which both major parties committed, a symbol of the need to do things differently.
But beyond good parliamentary processes, many people argued that political parties must recover a view of what matters in Australia, articulate this view of Australian society, and develop strategies that will help build such a society.
This view of political life sees it as about more than winning power, managing and self-promoting in a way that ensures being returned to power. It assumes, too, that government is about more than forcing through policies that increase Australian wealth without regard to how society benefits. If political parties focus on what matters, they will recognise that the good society has many aspects, that other views of what matters need to be taken into account, and that good government involves far more than economic management.
This understanding of politics has large consequences. It refuses to accept that politics are defined adequately by political processes. The larger goals shape processes. In particular, there needs to be consistency between the vision that underlies the goals, and the processes by which these goals are achieved.
In organisations that defend the dignity of marginalised people, for example, the working relationships between those working in the organisation and the relations between it and other organisations must also be characterised by the same respect that they demand be given to the marginalised. Processes characterised by bullying, deceit and passive aggression are intolerable because they corrupt the goals for which the organisation exists.
Coherence between goals that are inspired by a vision of Australian possibilities and the political processes through which they are implemented is also needed in national politics. The financial crisis showed the risk of a childish view of conceiving the good of society as constituted by increased wealth, and of conceiving government as making firm and virile decisions to free markets and so manage this kind of prosperity. Firm decision making led to the destruction of prosperity and the weakening of society. The processes of avoiding consultation, monstering opposition and bullying critics are consistent with shallow goals, but not with a focus on a richer society.
What should matter to our political parties is a vision of a good Australia and the development of strategies to deal with the challenges that we face in realising this vision, like responding to climate change, to our mineral wealth and to changing patterns of communication. These goals can be met only through processes that encourage conversation and cooperation between people who differ in their views of human society.
The current changes to parliamentary process do symbolise a better way. They make communication possible and enable more than token participation in the formulation and scrutiny of policy. They may be driven by the needs of the new Gillard Government, but they make it hard to regard the business of government as simply the imposition of executive will, and underline the need for persuasion.
Conversation and committees are helpful in refining vision and its implementation. They can also question whether the policies of the ruling party correspond to the human reality of Australian society. But they are no substitute for having a strong view of what matters. Nor can they supply a view of what matters.
It is a large hope that either of our two major parties, which were so happy to do whatever it took to win, no matter what the cost to human lives and ethical values, will recover a deeper sense of what matters. But the weakness of the Government means that these larger questions about politics cannot be suppressed.
Andrew Hamilton is the consulting editor for Eureka Street. He teaches at the United Faculty of Theology in Melbourne.