The Broken Promise Paradigm
I’m
not going to promise you anything, but I promise you that broken promises are not
going obsolete. Over the last three terms of government, the broken promise has
been a central part of their political disposition – whether they (the
offenders) believe it or not.
The
broken promise as a tokenistic centre piece of political point scoring from
oppositions is certainly not limited to the last three terms of government – it
has coexisted with the Australian political sphere since federation. Democracy
itself fosters broken promises, with politicians saying whatever they need to,
to win over the votes of the populace, then reverting back to ideological
viewpoints once in government.
The
last three governments, which consisted of: Rudd, Gillard, Rudd and now Abbott
–have seen a paradigm shift in the public’s perception of a broken promise. The
public now perceives it as ‘the norm’, and accept politicians for the liars
they are termed to be. Of course, not all politicians lie to get into office, but
those who do allow for these generalisations to generate.
The
political headway that Oppositions once received after a broken pre-election
promise was called for what it was – has however become obsolete. In polling
conducted after the Federal Budget, it wasn’t the broken promises that cost the
Abbott government desperate points, it was the widespread affect the budget
had, and the so called ‘shared pain’ as Treasurer Joe Hockey has repeatedly
described it.
Previous
to this ‘budget of lies and deceit’ that Labor has prefixed to all Question
Time utterances since the 13 May delivery of the Liberal Economic Plan, Labor
too was guilty of the broken promise. In the 2010 election campaign, Prime
Minister Gillard decreed that ‘there will be no Carbon Tax under the government
I lead’, yet it developed into Labor’s signature climate change policy.
Since
no one is immune from the scourge of broken promises and public deception, do
we as a nation not hold the government to account? The answer to that I would
hope is self- evident, but there are two interestingly different sides to this
argument.
Firstly,
of course we as the voters, the taxpayers and the broader Australian public
have the intrinsic role, in the form of democracy, to hold the government to
account. We need to ensure that political parties, no matter their origin,
develop sensible policy and explain it to us before we vote. We cannot become
complacent and allow the broken promise to become the accepted norm, and just
hope for the best. The political framework of Australia isn’t metaphorically
comparable the good old family board game, where you hope no once is cheating,
and lay faith in their morality. Because we all know that the moral compass is
easily skewed when power and influence is at play, and the prosperity of a
future Australia
isn’t worth the risk.
On
the other hand, it is inevitable that people (who funnily enough comprise the
parties we vote for) have the tendency, to not only change their mind, but
change their standpoint. It’s human nature. And if these changes are for the
benefit of everyone and this nation as a whole – why should we oppose this?
Of
course, significant policy changes on big issues allow parties to be termed as inconsistent
and superficial. Sure, this is entirely possible. New parties such as Palmer
United are the perfect example of this. Within a week of their new senators
taking up the role in the upper house, Palmer has provided dichotomous points
of view on everything from the Carbon Tax Repeal to the Freedom of Financial Advice
laws. I think we can safely assume that Palmer United doesn’t know where it
stands, and breaks promises based on naivety and lack of understanding –
fitting this category perfectly.
However,
the big political back flips that were formed by the Labor and Liberal parties
was not one of political stupidity, rather, they were considered decisions for
the benefit of Australia as they respectively saw fit. Labor decided, with the
coaxing of the Australian Greens, that a Carbon Tax and later Emissions Trading
Scheme was the right way to tackle and force Australians to consider the issue.
In much the same manner, and in more recent political times, the Abbott government’s
decision to cut funding in areas of government that had previously been cordoned
off, amounts to their way of tackling a debt they see as a detriment to future
prosperity.
It
is inevitable that broken promises will remain a part of the Australian
political demographic, however they are not all evil moves that oppositions
like to make out for political point scoring reasons. As sensible voters, we
have the responsibility to judge broken promises for what they are. We must not
become complacent and accept them as the norm, or let them become obsolete.
They are a part of the democracy we work and live in, we need to accept that,
and continue to campaign for a better Australia, not continue to look back and
play politics.
It
is sensible and responsible policy, not politics, which will move us forward.
It is the youth of Australia, whose voices will be that of adults of tomorrow
that will drive us forward. That, is something I can promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment