In our disenchantment about the two major parties of our political system, we have become a nation of people who do not even trust their politicians. We see them as fallible, forced choices of government who spend more time enjoying the luxuries of position and the associated perks rather than working for the voters who put them there.
In our disillusionment with the Labor and Liberal parties, we can no longer see a difference, between them and how they would run the country. The current voting public is no longer made up of old stalwarts who back one party for life, but of people burdened with the stress of modern life who are happy to swing between one election and the next, following whatever party promises to be most beneficial for them at this current point in time.
This has lead to an orgy of spending on election promises in the current campaign for the Australian federal election. Now, if we're rich enough to fund all these initiatives, why wasn't this money spent on improving services previously? This is the question the current governing party has to answer for: they have been in power for 8 1/2 years, enough time to have provided this service and built that infrastructure a long time ago.
As a voting public, by agreeing to support whichever party throws up the latest best idea in our own interests, and not opposing any of their more objectionable practices, we support their right to have short-term goals; whatever wins the election, right? But in the process we forfeit opportunities for long-term policies that will benefit Australian as a country over time. Yes, it is idealistic to expect politicians to provide services and security beyond their foreseeable term. But the flipside is a pessimism lapses into cynical apathy if unchecked, allowing a political party to ignore the 'right' thing to do for actions that serve best to get them re-elected by a disenchanted, disengaged voting public. It's a vicious cycle that we shouldn't be proud of, as public good is pushed to the side in favour of personal and economic gain.
As the Liberals see it, the reasons Australians should re-elect them for a third term are their concerted efforts to increase national security, and continued financial prosperity.
The first is contentious: we are asked to believe that if Australia had not supported the US the terrorists would have won, and then Saddam Hussein, and any other unproven Al-Quaeda allies, would have wreaked more terror, and thus going to war in Iraq increased our national security. However, the reasons we went to war are still debatable; and considering the political climate and relative safety of Iraq and Afghanistan still, not completely justifiable.
The second, economic prosperity, appeals directly the greed of the nation. We like to comfortable, and we like to believe that we can choose to remain so. It is, however, not a rational decision to allow one party to claim that they can ensure another three to four years of continued wealth, for the market fluctuations rely as much on the trading practices and governmental decisions of other countries and other governments.
Labor's main selling points are domestic, rather than international, which is understandable considering leader Mark Latham's comments about George W. Bush. It also allows for some degree of differentiation between the parties, for once - and in quite a few areas, Latham has taken risks to oppose the Liberal point-of-view, which identifies him as dangerous but also gives him an edge.
Labor promises to concentrate on education, social welfare, and health. This is a safe grab for votes as most people of voting age are worried about one if not all of these issues. The focus on healthcare is particularly astute considering Australia as an aging population. Also, complaints about hospital space and care, aged care, Medicare and so on have been on in the increase in recent years without satisfactory address from any level of government.
Can a Labor government actually fulfil all these new initiatives promised? Probably not, even with the certainly generous amount of money that seems to be in Treasury coffers, because their policies cover a broad range of interests and not all the people and organisations involved will co-operate; for example, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has already dug in its heels over the Medicare Gold scheme. However, these are plans of certain optimism that have at least considered the contemporary issues facing voters.
I am not writing to sway people to vote for one party over another, but to convince people to actually think about who they're voting for, and why, and to what impact. I vote in support for the idea of democracy - government by the people for the people - and for our right to choose and our freedom to do so.
Our generation has been raised to be so cynical about everything, and to react rather than reflect. But our cynicism breeds an attitude that makes us think we are helpless about the choices that matter, makes us relinquish our right to think and choose, and diminishes the effective voice we have. So on Saturday, please don't turn off your minds and even your hearts (an emotive vote can still be a good one) just because the current trend amongst people our age is to be disaffected.
Be a reasoned optimist, at the very least.
edited 26 Nov 2009
