Australian politics is generally benign and democratic, lacking the passion of revolutionary moments and extreme democratic enthusiasm. At first glance there is no comparison with tumultuous events overseas such as the overthrow of the dictator Mubarak in Egypt and the uprising in Gaddafi's Libya. But all political situations share common themes: questions of age, tenure, transition and family ties.
Mubarak, 82 years old, was just one of a number of old men behaving badly in world politics. Silvio Berlusconi of Italy disgraces himself and his country by his antics at the age of 74. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, 88, is even older and yet refuses to relinquish the reins of his deadly regime.
Women and younger men can also behave badly in both dictatorships and democracies, of course, but old men are hard to beat for flagrant abuse of power. Democratic elections don't prevent old men from holding power and not all governments led by old men are dysfunctional; but if we were to remove all leaders over 70 around the world the balance sheet would be positive.
By contrast it is refreshing to see Barack Obama at 49 and David Cameron at 43 take office in the USA and the UK respectively. In Australia Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are fighting it out in their late 40s/early 50s. Their relative youth is a breath of fresh air.
Extremely long tenure often accompanies age. Mubarak was in office for a massive 30 years. To put this in context, when he took over Egypt in 1981 the Australian PM was Malcolm Fraser. The American President was Ronald Reagan. No wonder he was out of touch with the young people protesting in the city square. Mugabe has been in office for 30 years so far and Gaddafi even longer.
Democracies can produce long tenures too. Berlusconi was first elected in 1994. In Australia there is no real equivalent. But Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister for a record 17 years and John Howard for almost 12 years. The USA has instituted a two-term rule for presidents which restricts them to eight years. This has been copied elsewhere and there is a wider term-limits movement in the USA.
There are arguments both ways for restrictions on political terms. They can have unintended consequences on political behavior in office, such as elevating inexperience prematurely, but they should be considered. Monarchs and popes have unrestricted terms that can lead to very long periods in office too. More often than not earlier succession would be beneficial all round.
Shorter, restricted terms should be welcomed. Eight to ten years is plenty. The balance sheet would be positive if there was greater turnover in office. Long-serving political leaders rarely do their best work in their final years. Turnover is beneficial. No one is irreplaceable and new leaders bring fresh perspectives to old problems.
The fact that leaders don't go earlier reflects the difficulties in arranging a smooth succession to office; not just in dictatorships but in democracies. The top job is just too comfortable. Long-serving leaders cast a large shadow. Regular democratic elections should solve these sorts of problems but they don't always do so.
There is a tendency in dictatorships for children to inherit the position. Democracies, like Singapore (the Lee family), the USA (the Bush family) and India (the Nehru family), don't escape political dynasties and dominant families either; nor does Australia entirely. There have been dynasties like the Downers, Beazleys and Creans in federal politics.
In NSW Mike Baird, son of former state minister and federal MP Bruce Baird will soon probably be State Treasurer in a new Liberal government; while yet another member of the Ferguson family will enter politics for Labor.
We should not overstate the case for similarities between Australian politics and what we witness overseas. But, without straining too hard, there certainly are discernible common issues.
John Warhurst is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and a columnist with The Canberra Times.