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.)