• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Principles and politics

by Simon Longstaff

Australia has been witness to a number of disturbing revelations flowing from investigations into some of the less savoury activities of the 1980s. But of all the enquiries, perhaps that of greatest significance is the Report of the Royal Commission into WA Inc.

The Royal Commission's report is unlike others in that it raises serious questions about the capacity of our system of government to protect the public interest. For example, take but one of the findings:

Ministers have elevated personal or party advantage over their constitutional obligations to act in the community's interests.

Those who actively participated in the abuse of power deserve to be censured. However; as the commissioners observe, one also needs to shine the light of accountability onto those other institutions charged with the responsibility of serving the interests of the People of Western Australia. In particular, it is important to ask questions about the role of the parliament of Western Australia and its failure to “provide an effective check on the executive arm of government”.

Some commentators (and politicians) have been quick to point out that the events in Western Australia had a parochial flavour and that other legislatures are better able to act as a balance. But all of this presupposes that politicians are generally clear in their own minds about their role in managing the relationship between the Executive and Parliament.

But are matters really so clear for them? For example, where does a politician's duty lie when her party is in power? What is to be made of the fact that certain issues are nominated as 'free' or 'conscience' votes, whilst others are presumably 'tied' or 'conscience-less' votes.

The majority of our politicians are members of political parties where the qualities of loyalty, discipline and solidarity are frequently thought to be, at least, as important as those of candour and independence of mind. A significant number of politicians genuinely believe that it is only by maintaining the party's position in power that the welfare of the community can be assured.

Many a blemish can be overlooked in the service of a greater good. So it is that ever since the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries there has been a grudging acceptance of the party whip (which has been applied with increasing vigour).

One needs to be sensitive to the profound ethical and political questions which arise when considering, for example, the plight of a Member who feels constrained to vote the party line – even if, in all conscience, to do so would be against the immediate interests of his or her electorate or contrary to what he or she considers to be just. One needs also to be alive to the fact that Governments (and even Oppositions) have, through the power of patronage, considerable resources to be used when fashioning inducements and sanctions.

It is argued that prudence dictates that one should take account of the need to secure stability in government. After all, the electorate may crave stability over other goods. However, one should also be aware of the possibility that principles may be compromised as the price to be paid for stability.

It could be objected that politics is a practical (and pragmatic) art. However, if principle is sacrificed in pursuit of power (even in support of a noble end), then it risks causing the alienation of the community whose consent provides the foundation on which the whole edifice is constructed. When all principle is abandoned in favour of expediency then the capacity for order (and trust) is undermined.

To place the system of government in jeopardy is not even consistent with the interests of those who might seek their own advantage with no thought for that of others. Paradoxically, their actions may cause the collapse of structures on which their poser and privilege depends.

discuss this article

---