When power passes from one political party to another we do well to reflect on the shape of the times. The way any party will deal with the challenges it faces is often shaped less by the distinctive attitudes of its leader or members than by those it shares with its opponents. These are likely to represent the prevailing winds in society. And if they are inhumane, they will not be countered by leader or politician bashing but only by persevering advocacy of a better way.
The election campaign showed that in Australia there is little sense of a shared humanity. When we put weight on the shared humanity that binds us to others we become ready to allow strangers to make a claim on our generosity. Now the bipartisan support for excluding asylum seekers from making this claim and the decisions by both parties to cut overseas aid or divert it to prisons and camps have been met by general approval.
This argues that a shared humanity is restricted to people like us. People do not make a claim on us because they are human beings, but because they are human beings of a particular nationality, religion, race or fate. Our kindness to strangers will not express a principle but a sentiment.
In coming years we might expect the categories of those excluded from the claims of our shared humanity to become broader. They will include other unpopular, excluded and disadvantaged people within the community. The ageing of the population, the pressure on revenue and the expectation that we shall continue to enjoy the same wealth and services as before will mean that governments will be unable to meet all their commitments.
It is natural for governments in such circumstances to cut the support it gives to the disadvantaged, whether they be Indigenous communities, unemployed or addicted. This is easier when the sense of a shared humanity is weak. They can then be portrayed as other than us, and their claim to a shared humanity to be diminished by such qualities we attribute to them as laziness, addiction, innate stupidity and antisocial tendencies. Their support will then be measured, not by their need as human beings, but by their lesser status. It can be measured out to them as a gift conditioned by compliance with whatever conditions we impose on them.
The sense of a shared humanity is further weakened by another feature of Australian culture. Emphasis is placed on the individual, and particularly on their choice through economic activity. The priority of economic relationships is reflected in the rhetoric and practices of government.
In coming years this emphasis may be reflected in a diminished awareness of the importance of connections within human life, a disregard for the place that relationships have in encouraging disadvantaged people to participate in society, and a further hollowing out of the small groups and community organisations that help people to belong. Services will increasingly be left to private enterprise, and contracts for work within the community won by multinational contacts.
This may be economically effective, but it will reduce the part of the community in building connections with the disadvantaged. Such exclusion can be expected to result in increased expenditure on prisons, police, security, hospitals and mind altering drugs.
The election campaign, in which the two major parties competed to treat asylum seekers in ways incompatible with their humanity, showed that these trends would be reflected in the way both the major parties governed. They reflect the conventional wisdom of society. So there is little to be gained in indulging personal resentment against the Prime Minister and political resentment against the Coalition except the sour consolations of self-righteousness.
The real challenge is to persuade our fellow Australians that each person matters, not because of the choices they make or the qualities they possess, but because they are human, and that a society is measured by the quality of its relationships.
That is a hard task in which there will be no large gains. It is done best through personal conversations and informal discussion. It will involve showing the shared humanity of people from whom it is being withdrawn, and by inviting others to make that humanity a matter of personal experience not of abstraction. It will also be necessary to point out the human consequences and the brutal assumptions of policies that effectively deny the humanity of unliked groups of people and reduce human wellbeing to increased economic activity.
It will be a slow process to persuade people to want a better Australian way of treating people. When the desire is enkindled we may be able to speak of a better way.
Andrew Hamilton is consulting editor of Eureka Street.
Welcome to Australia image from Shutterstock