The lack of role models, and contempt

Around two decades ago, I first started seriously thinking of getting involved in politics. At the time, I was what now is referred to as a "community activist", and it was the first time I had encountered real exposure to politics beyond what was in the paper.

Growing up, as a teenager in a small-ish Queensland regional town, I missed out on a whole stack of constructive role models.

On that, in terms of work role models, a couple of my teachers suggested I get into teaching: I've always said I made the choice because I didn't want to have to deal with the sort of behaviour my fellow students dished to our teachers, but now, I'm wondering if I might have decided differently, had I seen a young, energetic, enthusiastic teacher who was capably managing the behaviour of my fellow students.

Another teacher suggested I get into writing as a career - and I would have loved to, but all I could think of was writing novels, and I didn't see that I would be able to make a living that way in a relatively small literary market like Australia (no online access to world, nor affordable self-publishing, back then). I had no conception, despite an off-the-cuff remark by my English teacher, of how many fields I could have got into that way. (A couple of decades later, I once applied for a job writing technical manuals, which would have been fulfilling - but was knocked back as being overqualified. I'd seen my experience as an asset as it had included a lot of writing, and have been disappointed ever since, but I now wonder if the people making that decision didn't underestimate the importance of good writing/communication to creating a technical manual? A bit like the importance of teachers has been critically underplayed . . . )

In terms of this post, in those crucial years I had absolutely no idea that it was possible for everyday people to stand for election - I had no clue about what involved in campaigning, and the incredible demands of being an elected representative either, but had I been able to make that connection, there were other backroom roles that I could have pursued.

My only meeting with a politician was one who gave a speech which noted the connection between sailing and politics as both involving a lot of wind at a regional sailing championship. It was a good joke, but hardly enough to draw me into becoming involved with politics.

Looking back now, I also consider that I needed some life experience. I am of the view that when I did start becoming interested in politics, two decades ago as noted, I was probably at a personal development stage that was appropriate, but my personal circumstances had changed - in particular, I had a family at that stage who had no idea of the level of commitment that being a politician involves, had a callous contempt, disregard and disrespect for politicians ("Oh good, you'll be able to get the same perks as them" was one of the comments), and had no idea of how much scrutiny they would come under (and they had, shall I say, a "chequered" history . . . ), so I decided not to pursue that option. My family now is better informed and more supportive, but . . .

Shortly after that my health started falling apart, and I didn't, at that time, see how I could have been effective. Now, I know I could have - see here, for instance (and, to some extent, here).

I want to be clear, by the way, that I am discussing here engaging with politics as what is called "an insider": the option of engaging with politics as a citizen is something that ever citizen  SHOULD do anyway - see here.

At the time I'm talking of, the option I thought I had was standing as an independent, and I started a (poor) blog in support of it. I didn't necessarily want to get elected, but I wanted more voters to better understand things like:

(a) that they were - as far as the election Act is concerned - voting for an individual, with limited (there is some) recognition of political parties;
(b) that what mattered was a parties' policies, not the level of US-presidential style fervour around their leader; and
(c) that we live in a "constitutional monarchy", and once bills (incidentally, I am deliberately being sloppy about my terminology: if you want to know what terms I should be using, go to your Parliament's website) pass Parliament, they are not Laws until they receive the "Royal Assent".

The number of arguments I had when we had the referendum on becoming a republic because people thought that getting the "Royal Assent" was automatic and didn't matter!

This brings up the vexed issue of Parliamentary conventions - those things that people think are a A Big Deal, but don't exist anywhere in physical reality.

The fact that "Royal Assent" is nowhere compelled is a perfect example of that. If, for whatever reason (perhaps genuinely held religious belief), the Governor-General (or one of the State Governors) decided not to give something the "Royal Assent", we, as a society, are  . . . <expletive deleted> . . . up the creek without a paddle.

There is no court that can overrule this. Yes, the government can recommend who the Governor-General is, and possibly they can suggest they be removed, but basically, we are . . . <expletive deleted> . . . in trouble.

This is one of the reasons that so much effort is made to select people who are unlikely to perform such an egregious act - and I certainly have no indication that any of our current Governor-General/Governors would even contemplate such matters, but that isn't the <expletive deleted> point.

The point is we, as a democracy, are VULNERABLE.

And that vulnerability can be used by fascists, as it WAS in Italy and Germany in the 20s and 30s and by other tyrants since - for more on that, see here. Such conventions have also been broken by political parties for the purpose of the gain of power - going back to Malcolm Fraser's refusal to allow supply, which was followed up by Governor-General John Kerr choosing, in 1975, to sack a progressive government.

Long before the rise of tyrants like POTUS45, or Queensland's "flying peanut", or any of the others (which events show that we cannot rely on having people of good character - both initially, and while in power [we have no equivalent of the USA's flawed 25th Amendment] - in key or crucial positions) - in fact, for all my life, I have held nothing but contempt for the failure to codify Parliamentary conventions. The conventions are mostly good, but the naive and puerile insistence that they be unenforceable makes democracy vulnerable.

In this age of resurgent fascism, we need to protect our democracy by codifying important conventions, and enabling action to be taken when they are broken. As examples, automatic replacement of a Governor-General or Governor is they fail to give Royal Assent, discounting votes that have been placed when pairing has been broken, 

This, today, is what I want more voters to have a better understanding of: political vulnerability, and my contempt for the lack of protection of those.