Why Lie?
The Shortcomings of Modern Politics and the Rise of Independents
L.D. Banks
WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT SEEM TO ALWAYS LIE? THE QUESTION WE ALL FIND OURSELVES CONTEMPLATING AS WE MATURE AND BEGIN TO GAIN AN INTEREST IN POLITICS. For a group of people supposedly dedicated to the service of the people, they often seem to make promises that never come to fruition. Admittedly, it is not the fault of the individual, but rather the system at large. But it begs the question, why is modern politics centred around deception and manipulation?
The specific responsibility of a politician is to express the ideas of the people or electorate they represent at their most genuine. A good example is the ‘Shooters, Fishers, Farmers Party’ which represent a very concentrated populace and their viewpoints at their most pure. This small-party format allows for the most genuine transfer of an individual’s perspectives into the parliament. Often this link between the people and the parliament is ignored, particularly due to the inherent nature of the two-party system to create a seemingly ‘this way or that way’ dichotomy in relation to many issues. In the debate of a particular issue, it is never black and white, yet the two parties take contrasting views on many issues. This is supposed to allow for a Hegelian dialectic, resolving the dispute at a point of synthesis that considers the thesis and antithesis. However, in modern politics, individual politicians are forced to align wholly with their party rather than their electorate in fear of repercussions. Preventing the approaching of a middle ground as there is a lack of genuine nuance as half the parliament says the same thing whilst the other half says the exact opposite.
In the lead-up to an election, it is difficult to truly tell what will happen if a certain member or party is elected, and often the difference is not major. Much of modern politics is rather based around a virtue-signalling, ‘if you’re not with me your against me’ polarisation. Political candidates often take up a certain viewpoint just to be in direct opposition with their counterparts rather than synthesising a truthful viewpoint that they believe. This prevents candidates from expressing all of the important intricacies that can be gained from the insight of their electorate. This describes the exact problem that is currently being combated by the push for more independent candidates. Admittedly the introduction of more unique voices increases the time needed to debate due to the increased divergence in perspectives. Yet, nothing should prevent the most accurate manifestation of Australian values in the parliament.
One particular advantage of the two-party system is that it ignores the viewpoints that are too extreme for consideration. The parliament in general overlooks the minor opinions that are not significantly represented by the population. There are exceptions to this, such as Pauline Hanson who certainly represents a niche perspective. Although her points can sometimes be perceived as indecent and offensive, when she decides to express herself in a respectful manner, she represents an important angle that is genuinely held by a portion of Australians.
So what can be learnt from these two contrasting mechanisms being; the complete polarisation of all individuals and the two-party system which overlooks intricacies? Ultimately, my personal opinion is that the benefit gained from the expanded pool of opinions due to independents is worth the additional debate and that this extra consideration will actually lead to better-developed and mediated bills being passed.
Furthermore, this may lead to a culture of truth, as parliamentary groups are forced to compromise more often rather than pass bills through majority. This may lead to a shift in culture for MPs as they would be incentivised to more accurately represent their electorate, as the voters in traditional party-voting electorates begin to see the extra attention given to other electorates with independent MPs. Hence, I see it as a benefit to introduce the additional broadening gained by the shift to independents.