Restoration of public trust
by Simon Longstaff
Many people will remember that night, in 1996, when John Howard finally realised his long-held ambition to become Prime Minister of Australia. The speech that he gave when claiming victory filled many with optimism.
Alas, history will probably record that the first Howard government largely failed to justify our hope for a national leader who would draw out the very best of what the Australian people have to offer.
The Prime Minister has grasped the opportunity of his government's re-election to make a new beginning. Some have greeted the declared change of emphasis with an open air of weary cynicism. It may be better to wait and see. People deserve a second chance; an opportunity to reveal themselves in their best light and be as good and as great as they are capable of becoming. Given the benefit of our doubt, Mr Howard might yet become a great Australian Prime Minister.
If this is to occur, then John Howard must meet two fundamental challenges. First, he will need to do all in his power to restore public trust in the institutions of government. Second, he will need to end confusion about what it is that he stands for as Prime Minister.
As to the first challenge, it should be noted that a good deal of conventional wisdom views Mr Howard's Ministerial Code of Conduct as an unmitigated disaster. Critics argue that the Prime Minister set the bar too high. In doing so he saw a number of ministerial colleagues (and his own chief adviser) forced to resign. Worse still, the pain was for no gain – public cynicism about the ethics of politicians has continued to grow.
We should hope that Mr Howard will reject the advice of those who would have him abandon or weaken his code. It is a regrettable but necessary buttress against falling levels of trust. Lose trust in the lawmakers and you risk a loss of trust in the laws they make! The consequences for a democratic polity are lethal. If people truly value our democracy, then they will set aside personal or party interests and adopt those measures necessary to cure the malaise that weakens our body politic.
The Prime Minister's Code was judged by many to be a step in the right direction. Its provisions were clear; Ministers were given ample warning of their responsibilities and the penalties for failure to meet the published standards. Some paid a heavy price for failing to meet those exacting standards – a price that might not have been levied at a time of lesser concern and diminished scrutiny. However, sympathy should be tempered with the realisation that the harsh consequences were entirely avoidable by those affected.
Given this, many citizens will hope that Mr Howard rejects the arguments of the 'pragmatists' and sticks to principle. The health of our democracy is more important than the careers of a careless few.
The second issue to be addressed is the perception that in having satisfied his life's ambition to become Prime Minister, Mr Howard has nothing left to achieve. There were times, during the term of his first government, when it seemed as if Mr Howard was content to hold power for its own sake it; as if being PM was enough in itself!
It is said that John Howard does not like ‘the vision thing’. However, in avoiding talk of ideals, the Prime Minister has created a space filled by little more than conjecture. But why should people be left to guess about the Prime Minister's sense of what makes a good society? If only Mr Howard would catch the whiff of history that is in the air, inhale and reveal the BIG ideas that he would use to guide the building of this nation in the next century.
Mr Howard knows that he will be the last Liberal Party Prime Minister this century. He is a kind of 'bookend' that matches the founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies. Whatever people think of Sir Robert, one thing is clear – he founded the Liberal Party on a clear philosophy. The intellectual bones of the Liberal Party were articulated, in 1942, during a series of national broadcasts. Those who dip into the text of The Forgotten People will discover a genuinely (small 'l') liberal philosophy complete with references to John Stuart Mill and Roosevelt's ‘four great freedoms’. The great enemy was totalitarianism in all its forms. Menzies uses this liberal intellectual tradition to generate a clear, practical vision of the future that might be made by Australians in the aftermath of war.
Looking back it is possible to find an ideal that explains the underlying purpose in Menzies' pursuit of power. Where does Mr Howard's philosophy lie? What is the purpose of his overnment? Does he have a vision of the kind of future that we might make? At a critical time in the nation's development, at a time when people are looking for real leadership (and not just managerial competence) is it unreasonable to expect answers to these questions? In the meantime, we must wait and see.
discuss this articleDr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre.
A version of this article was written for publication in The Australian in October 1998
© St James Ethics Centre