Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > rm_mazandbren > The Complaisant Husband |
The Wilkie Dilemma
|
The Wilkie Dilemma The Honourable Andrew Wilkie, MP, is demonstrating he is a man of principle. So say the commentators and admirers. In sticking to his guns on the poker machine debate; the Honourable Mister Wilkie is demonstrating the dangers of the extremist- unable to get his way on his matter of principle- blind to his failure to carry his colleagues by the means of his arguments- he is willing to tear it all down. The Honourable Andrew Wilkie is willing to plunge the nation into Constitutional Crisis without even looking at the alternatives to the failure of his self-imposed mission. No compromise is good enough for the Parliamentary Member who is staking the stability of the nation on an all or nothing gamble. One is supposed to admire the stoicism and courage of the Honourable Member. Here, say his supporters, is a man of principle- the type of person we need in this hour of crisis. Yet, were he to bring down this government and force an election, the result is likely to see a government unwilling to entertain his notions of gambling reforms while the Honourable Member is likely to no longer be the Honourable Member. It is only by a preference deal with the Liberal Party that he has his seat; bereft of preferences from both sides he is unlikely in the extreme to maintain his seat at such an election. Moreover, such an election is likely to topple the only other Member of Parliament given to strong support for Gambling Reform: South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon. The total result of his insistence on an all or nothing position is likely to be destruction of any hope of gambling reform, even the compromise effort being proposed by Comrade Julia. His moment of relevance and importance is fast slipping by and rather than pitching in and finding solutions to the vexing social issue of problem gambling, he has opted to take his bat and ball and head home. Yet such childishness is being held up as the positive actions of a man of principle. We are to admire him, this paragon of extremist attitudes. Once again the notion of compromise is being derided as the avenue of the weak and the feeble. Once again the notion of actually achieving some good is thrown aside in the mistaken belief that extremist posturing is the answer to a road block. Theroux wrote that two roads diverged in the woods and that he took the road less travelled. Had the Honourable Member encountered the diverging road we might expect that his ode would be to the act of standing at the fork and willing a path to open up that allowed him to continue his journey without having to choose between the alternatives he is faced with. While Theroux found the difference of the road less travelled exhilarating, the Honourable Mr Wilkie would still be at the fork in growing frustration. Let us not admire the Honourable Member overmuch. Let us question his motives in this action. Let us deride his fanaticism. For it is appalling to believe that a compromise is the greatest of evils. For the likes of the Honourable Mr Wilkie and his supporters would have us believe that while any action to rid society of the ills of problem gambling is acceptable, the one action likely to alleviate these ills is not. If any action is a help to these unfortunates, then the Honourable Mr Wilkie needs to climb down from his pedestal, open his mind and make the best of the dwindling opportunity he now has. The Honourable Mr Wilkie needs to understand that his inability to get all that he desires is no excuse for failing to achieve all that he can. What an incredible waste of an opportunity to achieve some good, perhaps great good, simply because he is too stubborn to accept most of the dream in favour of hoping for the world to spin on a different axis. Such are the perils and risks of extremism. As an aside- In the wake of receiving the Order of Merit in recognition of his lifetime commitment to public service, the role John Howard played in the Republican Referendum has again become the focus of scrutiny. In the eyes of the disillusioned true believers, Howard perpetrated a terrible crime, single handed, in bringing down the republic. No mention is made of the many doubts and reservations of the people; no mention is made of the pathetic attempt to sell the merits of the model put forward; no mention is made of the strong reticence of the outer states to more control from Canberra. In the mythology of the Republicans, John Howard destroyed the hopes of a Republic almost as if he had personally stuffed the ballot boxes. There is an asinine quality to the republican movement that can only be described as childish. If, as they maintain, we are destined to become a republic, when exactly will they begin to describe their vision of the form and constitutional arrangements of that republic? When will we be told about the arrangements for the appointment of State Governors? When will we be told how they expect the President to be appointed? What will happen to the Executive Powers? Instead of providing information to allay the concerns of the electorate, the republican movement are relying on emotive appeals to chauvinism and xenophobia they would decry in anyone else on any other issue. Instead of offering reasonable dialogue on the merits of their models of governance, the republican movement relies on puerile attacks on the personalities of its opponents and the Royal Family. And any reasonable objection to the republic is invariably met with a dialogue but one step removed from a childish exhortation of- Awwww; you’re just a poo-poo head. There is an undercurrent in republican appeals that says that these issues will be sorted out later on; that the important aspect is that we get rid of the foreigners at the head of our political system and put an Australian in their place (could you imagine any other scenario where pushing such a statement would not be shouted down by cries of racism). Yet we would do well to learn from the experience of the Americans. Some of the finest minds in history, much less the era, worked upon the document that would define the governance of that nation not just for the time being or for a few generations, but for all time. For all their vision and determination, its mistakes are glaring and often its provisions rely on the things we hold to be true and beyond words on a page- respect for the rule of law. Yet it has been the focus and glue that has held that Republic together through the trials and tribulations of its long history- it has not only formed the foundations of the Republic as it was and as it is, but it has also been adaptable enough to preserve hope for the Republic as it could be. Constitutional arrangements should never be made for the moment. A constitution should not be for the now or the near future, but for the forty generations that follow, and the forty generations that follow that. It is precisely because it was envisaged to last so long that the American constitution and the American experiment has lasted so long. Is the Australian experiment worth any less consideration? It is an irony of epic proportions that one of the most politically aware populations in the world is being expected to make changes to its constitutional arrangements without due consideration of the effects of those changes. Until the Australian republican movement learns the lessons the electorate gave it in the referendum, until it begins to explain how the republic will work, its success will be a long way off. The fact that so many republicans are still peddling the myth that John Howard was solely responsible for the destruction of the republican dream suggests that they are a long way from learning those lessons.  In truth is there no beauty? I am not in love; but i am open to persuasion. |
Become a member to create a blog
