By Geoff Gallop
It would be the expectation of serious students of politics that our political class would have conviction based on a clear set of values. Once upon a time these values were easy to describe – left versus right with attitudes towards government ownership and control of commerce and industry being the key point of difference.
Since the collapse of communism and the mauling of democratic socialism from the 1980s onwards, this difference is less visible. Today we also see the value questions being played out on the environment (green versus brown) and on the nature of society (liberal versus conservative). So too do we see a difference in the way we are governed, with populist democrats lined up against liberal democrats. This division can be seen at work in the debate over a charter of rights and its implications for rule by majority opinion.
A strategy to realise these values comes next. It involves recognising the constraints of history and context, and the opportunities of politics. It means the setting of priorities, the marshalling of resources and the defining of tasks. It provides a narrative about past, present and future. Most importantly strategies recognise that values are contested and competition is inevitable. This makes the winning and sustaining of support a complex task and decisions have to be made about where and when to take up the battle.
Indeed political strategies can take different forms depending on the circumstances. Sometimes political parties may be simply holding the line to avoid defeat in an otherwise hostile environment. They may even incorporate values normally associated with their opponents to create political space for the pursuit of other agendas.
However, doing this too often can alienate the true believers and sap the energy needed for political combat. This being said, there are many examples of leadership-led redefinitions of political parties that are the result of strategic considerations and which have unleashed new energies. If power can be an aphrodisiac so too can the prospect of power!
The most significant strategic question facing the major parties in Australia today concerns the stance they will take on the growth markets of Australian politics – right-wing populism and left-wing environmentalism.
The Liberals under Tony Abbott have moved to consolidate their alliance with the disenchanted on the right, thus continuing the approach taken by John Howard. Should Malcolm Turnbull make a comeback it may be a different matter.
Labor has set a different course in getting closer to the Greens but keeping in touch with the disenchanted populists. Maintaining this balancing act will be challenging. It certainly worked as a strategy to win government in a hung Parliament but will be harder to maintain as the caravan of politics shuffles and stutters with the march of time. Already we can see some of the pressure points – water, refugees and the carbon tax.
This takes me to day-to-day tactics and political management. This is where the clarity and consistency needed for strategy can be won or lost. Think, for example, of Labor's decision earlier this year to back off from its Emissions Trading Scheme, which undermined the strategy that took it to power and in the process confused the electorate. Reinserting the carbon tax into the agenda has put Labor back on track again.
In many ways the tactical questions facing Tony Abbott will be easier to answer. He has set up his base camp in right-of-centre territory from which to attack his adversaries. His message to his colleagues is simple: "attack, attack and attack!" He believes clarity of purpose will serve him better than positive headlines applauding him for bi-partisanship. For this strategy to work he must be confident that a right-of-centre majority awaits him at the next general election.
This helps Labor by convincing Green voters that the Liberals are hostile to social progress environmentalism, but makes it harder for them to keep in touch with the disenchanted to the right. Abbott is speaking to these people directly and with few qualifications.
One would think that Labor would want to be left-liberal and sensibly green. It is truly a vision of society worth having - a community built on liberty, equality and sustainability. However, its undiluted advocacy is difficult in troubled times, with social dysfunction, global terrorism and financial instability creating unease and pushing a not insignificant number of electors to the right. Labor's strategic task then is not just to listen to people but to engage them in a conversation about the benefits of idealism and the dangers of populism. Chris Bowen's approach to asylum seekers is a sign that this need is being recognised.
This isn't going to be easy. Not only are there the social, political and economic developments mentioned above, there is also the populist media to contend with on a daily - if not hourly - basis. In the battle between strategic consistency in the interests of a better society and tactical flexibility in the interests of short-term advantage, the latter is more often than not successful. What really matters is not so much an inconsistency or two in a world of events and change but rather a collapsing of politics into a cavern of day-to-day tactics without an overarching vision and strategy to back it up. Without vision and strategy political parties lack purpose and direction.
They could do well to remember the Chinese story of "The Frog in the Well"- the frog was happy to wallow in his well where he was lord and master but was silent and felt abashed when a turtle told him of the enormity and potentiality of the sea.