A great effort at dissembling, Max, I am sure some people will be misled.

Gillard happened to be right, and should have had the support of her cabinet.

Julie Bishop was right in asserting this, but I suppose that she should have acknowledged that if one is the leader of the Labor Party, and gets something right, then one should not disclose it, and expect to have support.

It is reminiscent of Costa, when he told the truth about climate change, and was attacked from all sides by his own party, for getting something right, and telling the truth about it. He has an obligation to go along with the AGW Fraud, because he is a member of the Labor Party.

Gillard must be careful, not only to lie, but to do the wrong thing, when the opportunity arises. It is her obligation as a member of the Labor Party, and more so, because she is the leader.

Well, Julie Bishop is only saying what has been coalition policy, for as long as there has been a coalition.
Disunity is death!
Disunity and its handmaiden, leaking, never ever serves personal political ambition!
It can however, virtually destroy a political party or movement, or the very vehicle one was relying on to serve that personal political ambition!
In my view, ultra conservative and extremely autocratic Meg Lees, may well have been wrong to allow the still hated granny killing GST through the Senate, against the expressed wishes of the Democrats' rank and file; and or, 87% of polled Australians?
However, if her party had simply accepted the fait accompli and closed ranks behind their leader, let the dust settle and then rewarded her with a spill, and a new less domineering more inclusive leader, there might still be a democratic party!
Rhrosty.

Disunity is death!
Rhrosty,
In that case Australia is on a suicide plan !

Rhrosty, the Democrats were doomed to extinction by a thousand cuts from the day their previous Female LEADER who was sucked into bed by Labor guile and deserted her ship mid term.
That LACK of LOYALTY still turns my stomach, and I wasnt a Democrat Party member! Can you imagine how devastated they must have felt.
That female still flosses around pretending to be a real quality human apparently with no understanding or shame for all the damage she did to politics and other humans particularly other women.

Max makes much of following one's 'conscience' in matters of 'principle' - quoting a 1774 speech by Edmund Burke which included: 'his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to ..any man'. Would that our politicians were universally so 'enlightened'.

Max in effect argues that this should be an inviolable 'rule' - offering only partial exception in matters deemed (by unspecified mechanism) to be matters of 'policy', but not necessarily of 'principle'. There appears a 'fine' distinction operating here. For example, how is involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan more a matter of principle than of policy?

The reliability of individual 'conscience' is also open to question. Surely, conscience is not static, pre-ordained or inherently perfect - but rather subject to evolution through experience, study, and contemplation of the example set by others.

Case in point: Leo Lane posted the following (regarding Gillard's wish to vote against the Palestinian motion to the UN, while Bob Carr opined it deserved support, and Cabinet favoured abstention - hedging its bets or sitting on the fence?):
>>Gillard happened to be right, and should have had the support of her cabinet.<<

Fact is, I disagree with Leo, and with Gillard, in this matter of 'principle'. Or, was it of 'policy', of both, or of neither? Is Leo's opinion, or conscience, more 'valid' than mine?

Burke stated: 'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.’ Hence, our leaders (parliaments) should lead, and not just blindly follow the 'opinion' of the masses. In matters of both principle and policy?

'Conscience' is not necessarily reliable, and the canvassing of Cabinet (and parliament's) 'opinion' is democracy at work, and potentially more reliable. Public (parliamentary) 'conscience' votes should be confined to populist matters - no one voice rules, no one faction 'accountable', no great harm done.

Julie Bishop was just 'playing politics'. (Of course Tony listens to Shadow Cabinet - and Julia must be deafened by the cacophony.)

Acting on conscience means acting on your own judgment - taking the trouble to find out the facts and acting on your own sense of what is right. This is all Burke means. Presumably it is how Saltpetre decided that Gillard, Bishop and Leo were wrong on the question of Palestine’s status. It doesn’t require politicians to be ‘enlightened’, merely diligent and honest.

One’s judgment may, of course, change over time but this true of everyone, including Gillard, Bishop and Leo. It does not make one's judgment less ‘reliable’. The question is whether Carr was right to stick to his guns or whether, as Bishop argues, he had a duty to follow the leader.

A ‘matter of principle’ is one governed by moral values such that the wrong decision will violate someone’s rights. Examples are the Iraq War, the apology and recognising Palestine. The decision is either right or wrong. By contrast, issues of policy serve the community by providing benefits. We argue over whether a policy works, whether it is affordable, and whether some other goal should have priority. A ‘wrong’ decision may be poor government, but it does not violate our values.

Max,

I still think Bishop was just 'playing politics' - taking opportunity to highlight an apparent 'blip' in Labor Cabinet 'solidarity', playing on ever-present speculation on Gillard's hold on the top job. (Carr in the wings?) Normal hype and spin we are so used to, and so tired of. A cheap shot, and I don't think anyone was impressed. (Bishop doing Abbott's 'dirty work' on this occasion, in unrelenting pursuit of any perceived 'weakness' in the other camp. Time for a more 'positive' approach, methinks.)

I assume Bob Carr viewed the issue as one of moral values, and felt that having the courage of his convictions, and conscience, overrode any purely 'political' implications - hoping to sway Cabinet from making a poor 'policy' decision which could impact badly on our international standing - he is Foreign Minister after all. (And I think Gillard was sailing too doggedly close to U.S. lines, perhaps in view of our temporary seat on the Security Council? An attitude with implications for our broader standing and relations with the international community, and particularly our 'Asian' and Mid-East relations.)

Apology: Moral Values - Yes; Palestine? Also, Yes.
Iraq: I think this is a more complex issue, with broad human rights and Geo-political ramifications. One one hand, internal human rights abuse and implied connections with terrorism; on the other hand, intervention would cost many lives on both sides - and possibly without great internal improvement. In hindsight? Not too promising. An error, morally or Geo-politically? At least it's now up to Iraq - democratically?. Hoping.

Gay marriage: Conscience and national psyche, with legal and moral implications - do we really need this, are we ready for it (in view of our substantially Christian background)? Seemingly innocuous, yet strikingly disturbing to some. A national plebiscite, or parliamentary 'conscience' vote? My view: Let the people decide.

Did Carr have a duty to follow his leader 'in this instance'? Well, Cabinet didn't either, so, I guess that answers that.

Saltpetre,

I would have to agree with your views on Bishop, and for the reasons you give. I wasn’t really interested in her motives, but this ‘follow the leader’ theory of a Minister’s duty seems so bizarre that it is difficult to avoid your conclusion that she is playing politics. I do not believe she has thought seriously about what she is saying.

I also agree with your views on Carr, and in any case there is a good general principle that one ought to give an adversary the benefit of the best interpretation of both their motives and argument. I tried to do this with Bishop.

I agree the Iraq War is a difficult issue - the legal arguments alone are complex and intricate. My concern was that the doctrine of party unity made it unlikely that any Labor member would support a Senate inquiry to clarify and assess the evidence said to justify it. My criticism of Bishop is that she is taking this unfortunate doctrine to an extreme.

Last but not least I agree that a democratic resolution of controversial issues is better than any alternative. I would argue that, in resolving such issues (including the Iraq War and same-sex marriage) politicians have a duty - as well as a right - to vote according to their own judgment, a proposition denied by the doctrine of party unity, and by Bishop’s novel theory of loyalty.

Max,

The Iraq War is a done deal. UK had its inquiry; and much U.S. raking of coals. I see no point in us having a Senate inquiry; time and tide have moved on, but I hope we have learned something from the experience. New challenges demand attention (Syria, Egypt, Mali, .. Israel/Palestine, .. Iran?) and a host of humanitarian concerns - an unending torrent of tumult, and too few hands, too little co-operation, too little resolve. Many questions, few answers.

>.. there is a good general principle that one ought to give an adversary the benefit of the best interpretation of both their motives and argument.<

It would be very interesting (and potentially of great value) to see this ethic applied in our parliamentary adversarial system; but our 'Party' Political system would be unlikely to stray from its usual 'combative' approach to debate. (Perhaps such a more ethical and respectful approach could have applied in the likes of the Roman Senate?)

Loyalty: My view. Any 'Party' ought aim to promulgate a unified stance on all important policy issues - with all haggling carried out behind close doors, and with no 'leaks'. However, this should not be, or be taken as, blind following of the leader, but rather, in a healthy collective, be the result of a consensus of the responsible, informed and considered views of all the participants. Exception may be made in purely 'moral' issues, where consensus has authorized a 'conscience' vote; and an occasional 'crossing the floor' on sensitive policy issues need not be viewed as a 'breakdown' in Party unity.

Carr sent a message to his leader - in this instance justifiably. It would seem his leader got ahead of herself, and forgot about unity.

Max,

Sorry, I didn't address the closing of your last post properly - I have no clear answer, but am increasingly disenchanted with our existing Party system.

Also, my last closing should have said 'his leader .. forgot about 'consensus', on such a potentially contentious issue'.

> I agree that a democratic resolution of controversial issues is better than any alternative. I would argue that, in resolving such issues (including the Iraq War and same-sex marriage) politicians have a duty - as well as a right - to vote according to their own judgment, a proposition denied by the doctrine of party unity, <

I tend to agree, and, harking back to your article, I wonder whether constituents (or the nation) are really properly represented by our Party system. People so often vote for a 'Party', rather than a 'personal representative' - and our 'above the line' ballot system caters directly to this 'Party System' - and each Party subscribes to a particular political philosophy, or agenda, with much middle ground, or alternative policy direction, substantively ignored (except by 'minor parties' or independents - few of whom get much of a hearing).

I get heartily sick of hearing the party line 'pushed', by the same few players, in every parliamentary debate - totally adversarial, often abusive, and no credit given to even reasonable alternative argument. I yearn for more reasoned and respectful debate, and a more 'open' airing of issues and opinions (reasoned convictions), and, dare I say it, voting according to 'conviction' on a wide range of issues. I think the constituents deserve no less - but are mostly hamstrung in their choice of representation by 'the system'.

All existing democracies seem to hold to a Party system, and government by a 'coalition' (limited compromise of philosophy and agenda), so any deviation would be novel, but maybe not impossible. Could we possibly lead the way to a more open democratic system, a new paradigm? I hope so, because I am heartily sick of our current periodic see-sawing between socialist and conservative 'blueprints'.

Saltpetre

I think it’s time you wrote your own articles. The questions you pose are fascinating as well as important, but few take them seriously. Even in journals like The Monthly and the Griffith Review one looks in vain for a discussion of the role of politicians, or a scholarly debate on political theory.

I need to clarify my remarks on an inquiry into evidence said to justify the Iraq War. I was referring to an actual motion by the Greens in the Senate in early 2003 to this effect - it had no support from major parties. A distinguished Labor Minister explained that he had rung around, but found no enthusiasm. I see this as a consequence of the doctrine of unity and the way it lets members ‘off the hook’ - they don’t need to study the evidence to form a judgment, they simply accept the views of party leaders.

The point of my criticism of Bishop was to question this doctrine of party unity, not just her extreme version of it. But it is so deeply embedded in the culture that most people take it for granted, which brings me to your remarks: I agree parties should seek unity - it is why issues are thrashed out in caucus. But I don’t agree that members have a duty to accept anyone else’s opinion on an important moral issue, whether the opinion of a leader or a consensus.

I think this is where the rot sets in, because it means party members must learn to defend decisions they cannot justify - at least not by the values they appeal to outside politics. That is, they learn to dissemble. So while I disagree with most of Edmund Burke’s conservative views, I think he got this right.

This practice of moral self-subordination is now so pervasive in Australian politics that it would hardly be inappropriate, were a competition launched for a suitable flag for a republic, to portray a mob of sheep in a cloud of dust, with somewhere in the background a drover’s dog keeping order.

Max,

You give me much to ponder, but I assure you I have many more questions than I have answers.

I don't like our parliamentary system at all. My inclination is towards very small government, a Board of Directors of sorts, of highly qualified members, elected purely on merit (by the constituents, from a rather short 'list'), remunerated on performance, and backed up by a host of eminent advisers, and a solid bureaucracy. (Possible 10 year terms, with half the members up for election each five years, internal and external performance reviews, and possible 'impeachment' provisions.) The first problem of course is how to draw up the list of contenders (who would have to be volunteers, I suppose), via the auspices of a committee of national 'sages' - the learned kind, not mystics. (A committee of course can be capable of inventing a 'camel', so the whole thing might be dead in the water from the go.)

However, I can't see how such a small government could perform any worse than our current system, and the country could benefit substantially from reliable, effective long term planning - stability and assurance in policy direction, as against our current 3-year turnaround 'uncertainty' treadmill. Major policy directions may even be 'put to the people'.

In the end result, I would rather see us governed by a balanced board of level-headed governors, than the current overblown collection of idealistic or opportunistic rag-tags. (Not that they're all hopeless, just too many of them.) Could save a lot of money as well.

State Governments could merely be regional semi-autonomous subsidiaries - but that's another story.

Also, I like your flag - good Aussie theme, and the drover's dog 'ringmaster' (Kelpie I presume - not that I'm prejudiced) is a ripper. (Just what I need too.)

Saltpetre

I agree we need to keep asking the big questions and testing major assumptions and conventional practice - that democrats should read Plato’s Republic, and conservatives JS Mill and John Rawls, not just Burke, Friedman and Ayn Rand, and that everyone should read Dickens.

Experience suggests that even minor constitutional changes will be problematic, and major changes occur in crises fraught with the risk of civil war or violent overthrow of rulers. The question is whether our problems are systemic, requiring radical reforms, or whether they have more to do with human nature, calling for a change in attitudes and practices. Representative democracy evolved over centuries and, while Westminster government has its faults, it seems no worse than other democratic systems.

I believe our system is as good as any, and that it is unlikely to see criminals like Richard Nixon, or gullible and servile people like George W Bush, wield great power. But it could be better. I would like to begin at square one and ask whether elected politicians, paid from the public purse, owe a higher duty to the community than to parties and their leaders.

Although parties in his time were merely alliances of members with similar views, Edmund Burke had no doubt - their primary duty was to serve the community by informing themselves and acting on their own judgment. I believe this is the only way to respect community values. It is also an interpretation of political duty which might have led to a different approach to both the apology and the Iraq War.

I enjoyed the discussion. Once again, you might consider working up a paper yourself. You will find it a time-consuming and frustrating, but also fascinating, exercise.

Thanks Max, and keep up the good work. You make good sense, and your suggested change of attitude towards principal focus of service could do much to improve the quality of debate and outcomes, and accountability to the electorate - without invoking too much angst all round. Question may be whether parliament, or government, can operate effectively with a looser 'alliance' of like-minded representatives (or if the electorate will cotton to the idea), but then, the current situation federally with a number of minors and independents substantively holding a balance of power in the House of Reps would indicate that it could work quite well indeed. Come the election, we will see if the electorate recognizes and values the contributions of these particular individuals, and if so, from small beginnings ... (hoping they will be standing). An Independent in Cabinet might raise some eyebrows, but also open eyes to further possibilities. (Rob Oakeshott or Tony Windsor, anyone?)

Still, the majors will be a hard nut to crack.

We live in interesting times.

Best regards, P.