Bipartisanship. Remember that? It's been so long since I've seen it in any of the world's major democracies that I had to go to dictionary.com and check what it meant again.
Oh yes, here it is: "bipartisan" (adjective) means of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major
political parties. Noun form - "bipartisanship". Nope, doesn't ring any bells. Certainly not here is Australia, where anything the government proposes generates not constructive criticism from Abbott and the Coalition, but rather a torrent of emotive and singularly unhelpful abuse. Certainly not in Europe either, where the solution to the Eurozone mess is bleedingly obvious to anyone with even a passing grasp of economics, but the leaders of the constituent states won't pay the political price of taking the correct course of action. And most definitely not in the USA, where both sides would rather risk dropping the country into an economic abyss than agree to take what are "no brainer" compromise measures to stabilise the situation and calm down financial markets.
The results that this intransigence produces are there for all to see right now in the political arena. Instead of taking the appropriate long-term measures needed to get their economies back on track, the competing interests in Europe and America have been locked in a cycle of brinkmanship which results not in a viable solution, but rather stopgap measures which last for a few months before the fundamental problems re-emerge and there is another market panic while everyone works out how best to apply the latest band-aid. Meanwhile, back in Australia instead of dealing with the important issues like tax and labour market reform which have all got too hard for the government, the debate has become centred on relatively trivial issues led by the minorities in government like gay marriage, poker machines, boat people and what Peter Slipper does in his spare time. Because financial markets have completely lost confidence in the ability of governments to debate and resolve issues sensibly, business confidence and therefore investment remains low, making the already significant economic problems far worse.
How did this unsatisfactory state of affairs come about, you might ask? It certainly wasn't always the case. Look for example at the USA and Australia during the 1980s. In America's case, you had a Republican in Ronald Reagan presiding over the country during a time when both Congress and the Senate were controlled by the Democrats. In Australia, Labor had the numbers the House of Representatives for all of its 13 years in power but never enjoyed a similar advantage in the Senate. This didn't however stop either country from being governed effectively over this time and enjoying great economic prosperity over much of the decade. Why therefore have things turned so nasty and partisan in the modern age, especially at a time when governments can least afford to act in this way?
There are probably a number of factors at play but I think a big contributor is the fact that with all the polling and media scrutiny that modern politicians often find it difficult to look past the end of their noses. The efforts of government have become so directed towards scoring points against their political opponents and winning the 24 hour news cycle that the actual business of government has taken a back seat. Also the amount of carping and vitriol that flies around the internet, Twitter and the mainstream press probably doesn't help establish a co-operative negotiating environment between the different parties. I'm sure there are capable people within both the major political parties whose job it is to develop cogent policies and to help their political masters with the task of converting them into draft legislation and shepherding them through Parliament, but right now they must be tearing their hair out as they are taking a back seat to the internal pollsters and "numbers men" in each party.
Whatever the reason, it high time that governments and oppositions everywhere round the world toned down their partisan grandstanding and directed their energies instead to productive and collaborative negotiation. It's also time they realised that being able to reach a compromise position is not just fundamental to good government, but is an essential skill needed for the survival of mankind as a whole. Right now in the Gaza Strip we are witnessing the tragic results that happen when parties on two sides of an argument have neither the will nor the wherewithal to sit down and work out a diplomatic solution to their problems. God knows what might have happened at any time during the Cold War if the Russians and Americans had adopted a similar approach to the one that the Israelis and Palestinians are currently taking.
Similarly, if businesses went about things the same way that politicians currently do, global trade and commerce would grind to a halt. Any successful business knows that a fundamental key to success is understanding the markets they are in and negotiating terms with their customers and suppliers which reflect those conditions. If they just stood back and refused to negotiate or compromise with the counterparties they deal with, I am betting that they would wind up going broke pretty quickly.
Given that most people intuitively understand the benefits of acting collaboratively and making some compromises in the interests of achieving a greater outcome, it's a hard thing to accept when our elected leaders decide to engage in grandstanding rather than acting in the national interest, which let's face it is what they were elected for in the first place. I don't know who Parliament or Congress they think they are impressing when for example they engage in irresponsible behaviour like leaving asylum seekers indefinitely in limbo or pushing the US Government to the brink of insolvency. Possibly some loony nuts at either end of the political spectrum, but certainly not the vast majority of voters who just want to see leadership and outcomes instead of more partisan bickering.
Will we see a new spirit of co-operation and some positive policy outcomes here in 2013 after the election happens and we get a Parliament which isn't at the mercy of independent MPs who most of didn't vote for? Will we see the same thing in the USA now that Obama has been returned by a fairly convincing margin?
Let's hope so. I'm not sure I can stand this idiocy for much longer.
