• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

What is the big idea?

John Howard's Prime Ministership

by Simon Longstaff

John Howard's victory speech after his first election win in 1996 filled many people with optimism. Alas, history will probably record that his first government largely failed to justify hopes for a national leader who would draw out the best of what the Australian people have to offer.

Howard has grasped the opportunity of his 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 change, an opportunity to reveal themselves in their best light and to be as good and as great as they are capable of becoming.

Given the benefit of doubt, Howard might yet become a great prime minister.

If this is to occur, he 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 Howard's ministerial code of conduct as an unmitigated disaster.

Critics argue that the Prime Minister set the bar too high. A number of ministerial colleagues (and his own chief adviser) were 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 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, they will set aside personal or party interests and adopt those measures necessary to cure the malaise that weakens our body politic.

Howard's code was judged by many to be a step in the right direction. It's 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 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, Howard has nothing left to achieve. There were times during his first term, when it seemed as if Howard was content to hold power for its own sake.

It is said Howard does not like ‘the vision thing’. However, in avoiding talk of ideals, he 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 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.

Howard knows he will be the last Liberal prime minister this century. He is a kind of 'bookend' to the founder of the party, Sir Robert Menzies.

Whatever people think of Menzies, one thing is clear: he founded the Liberal Party on a clear philosophy. Its intellectual bones were articulated in 1942 during a series of national broadcasts. Those who dip into the text of The Forgotten People will discover a genuinely liberal philosophy. The great enemy was totalitarianism in all its forms.

Menzies used 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 his pursuit of power.

Where does Howard's philosophy lie? What is the purpose of his government? Does he have a vision of the kind of future 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?

discuss this article

---