(net) Working the electorate
From Griffith REVIEW Edition 3: Webs of Power
© Copyright Griffith University & the author.
Written by Patrick Bishop
Download the complete article PDF
Patrick Bishop's biography and other articles by this writer
Sunday evening is the best chance for leisure time for overworked politicians. On this Sunday, however, we find three Labor premiers, not in their homes or their offices in the state capitals, but in three small hotel rooms in three one-satellite-dish towns scattered across the more remote parts of Australia, discussing party business via a satellite-phone hook-up. The two newer premiers chastise the older hand. "It's your fault we're stuck way out here on a Sunday night," they only half-jokingly complain. The third knows they are right. It is his innovation that has dragged them from the family hearth on a Sunday evening but he is not apologetic. Community cabinet meetings work, he would say, are good politics, good for representative democracy and good for premiers. Let the identity of the two new premiers remain a mystery. The identity of the third is Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, premier since 1998 and in an election this year the "defender" of the largest majority in the country.
With electoral volatility a feature of the current political landscape, predictions are dangerous, but I anticipate a healthy margin for Labor in Queensland after the election. Notwithstanding the outcome, I suggest that the value of community cabinets has already been tested in the cauldron of electoral politics.
In 1998, such a luxurious margin seemed unlikely. As an apparent marker of the trend to greater electoral volatility, the 1998 election saw not only 28 per cent of the vote go to the One Nation Party but a third knife-edge result. The question of who would form government rested in the hands of two independents: Peter Wellington and Liz Cunningham. As the National Party government had previously relied on the good offices of the member for Gladstone (Cunningham) to retain power, Beattie's best chance was Wellington. Wellington pushed for a "deal": that the new government should be more participative. This was also a view pushed by the populist One Nation Party, holders of 11 seats in parliament. Politicians had stopped listening and we, the people, needed representatives who were in touch with our everyday concerns.
As it turned out, this was far from a Mephistophelian deal for Beattie, who has proved himself master of making connections with "the people". Eschewing the technocratic image associated with Wayne Goss, itself somewhat of a construction given his status as the nation's most popular premier some 12 months before his eventual defeat, serves Beattie well, differentiating him from both past leaders, Goss and National Party leader Rob Borbidge, who was often seen as "aloof". Beattie's personal style, ironically, has more affinity with his nemesis from trade union days, former National Party Queensland premier and populist par excellence, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.
Unlike Sir Joh, however, Beattie's personal appeal as the embodiment of Queensland, transcends partisan politics. At the Kingaroy community cabinet (Bjelke-Petersen heartland) he started off by saying that he had just come from morning tea with Sir Joh and Lady Bjelke-Petersen, that he knew Kingaroy would never vote Labor, but that he was not there to win elections but as Premier of Queensland, working for all Queenslanders. In the front row, he acknowledged the member for Kingaroy, Dolly Pratt, then of One Nation, who hung on his every word and graciously accepted his acknowledgement. Even National Party stalwarts in local government find him approachable, appreciate his efforts on their behalf and rank him a "good bloke and a good premier".
Beattie was a populist confronted with the problem of populism in the guise of the "anti-politics" of One Nation. The connection between populist movements, at that time more right-wing than left, from Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, Georg Haider in Austria, to Ross Perot in the United States, was a deep distrust of professional politics and politicians. This applied as much to politics in two-party systems, as in Australia and the US, as to the "behind the scenes" deal making of established multi-party systems in Austria or France. Populists do not necessarily share an ideology but are uniform in their attack on the practice of professional politics, which they always see as detrimental to "ordinary people". Politicians, on this account, are self-interested, disconnected from the people they represent, "only in it for the pension" and/or "elitist".
Populism presents a problem for democratic governments, representative democracy in particular. Populists draw attention to the fact that between elections the citizens are subject to the will of their chosen government. Unless there is some degree of trust between electors and the elected, the populist threat to established political parties is very real.
To meet this challenge, Peter Beattie adapted an old Queensland format, community cabinet meetings (the first had been held in the 1950s) but he dramatically altered their structure and made a far greater commitment of resources and, especially, time. In responding to press questions at the time, Beattie spelt out his attitude that government was about getting out in the community and listening to what the community wanted. Echoing the populist concern that "political parties, governments and public servants have for too long thought they are the font of all wisdom", he exclaimed: "They're bloody not! You get some very bright ideas from out of the community."
COMMUNITY CABINET MEETINGS HAVE NOW TAKEN PLACE all over Queensland in a range of locations from the relative splendour of the Currumbin-Palm Beach RSL & Services Memorial Club to a non-air-conditioned, corrugated-iron recreation club on Cape York. They occur every four weeks and the pattern has not altered in the nearly six years they have been a feature of the Queensland political landscape. The Saturday's proceedings comprise three sessions. The first is an address by the Premier with all his cabinet present (introduced by name and portfolio, with often informal familiarisations, such as announcing a minister's birthday). Once the ministers are introduced, the Premier enthuses about the Government's desire to hear from the people and then calls for questions from the floor. At a Gold Coast meeting, questions ranged from proposed public housing, drug problems, damage to roads after recent flooding, the loss of a proposed expo and what it would mean for the community, to the failure of the Gold Coast bid for Baywatch and co-ordination problems of emergency services for a small hinterland community. While the Premier may often make reference to the relevant minister for specific details, he initially fields all questions.
Peter Beattie is comfortable in such a forum. He appears entirely at ease and enjoys the repartee. There have been few attempts to dominate these sessions. Diatribes or disparaging personal remarks by people about ministers are quickly and effectively controlled by the other people present. This awareness among the participants of what constitutes "a fair go" is a part of the network of trust that is developed in the process. As a result, rarely do "minders" need to intervene.
The group then breaks up into meetings with the respective ministers. The local hall is set up for the day with a clearly signposted table for each minister. This session is also open to all comers. Each minister, an adviser and the director-general of the department are stationed at a desk and listen to the complaints/petitions from anyone who wishes to make them. This process lasts for about an hour. Some ministers are very busy while others have little trade. Even at the busy sites there is no sense of rushing the process. Each deputation or individual is given a fair hearing, although there is little that can be promised at this stage. The most popular person to speak to is always the Premier. Many, in fact, just want to speak to the Premier. I've noticed, almost invariably, those speaking to the Premier end by saying: "You're doing a great job, Peter" to which his reply is usually the casual "Thanks, mate, not many people say that of politicians these days", followed by a handshake.
The final session on the Sunday is for formal delegations whose members have made formal submissions in advance to allow ministerial staff to peruse them and, in most cases, prepare briefs. Here the responses are more formal and advanced notice allows for more co-ordination with, in some cases, a number of relevant ministers meeting with the deputations to discuss a particular proposal. While some delegations are poorly prepared and need considerable assistance from government aides, people such as leading property developers and university vice-chancellors, whom you would expect to have alternative access to government, also make use of these sessions. This may reflect how difficult it would be to get the kind of co-ordinated response that only community cabinet meetings can offer, where you can be sure of meeting with two or three relevant ministers and their senior bureaucrats. The commitment is to meet all deputations, either that afternoon or at further sessions held on the Monday, sometimes from 7am. The Monday also includes a regular confidential cabinet meeting from about 10am to 1pm, sometimes followed by more deputations.
This three-staged approach develops as a lively interaction between representatives and citizens. The Premier, ministers and directors-general all dress informally, tea and coffee are served and the meeting is carried out in a relaxed manner. All people who approach ministers subsequently receive follow-up letters with advice on how their complaints or proposals have been treated.
ACCORDING TO SURVEY DATA, ATTENDEES ARE SLIGHTLY MORE LIKELY to be female than male, predominantly in the 45- to 75-year age bracket, without children at school and most likely to have listed year 12 as their highest level of education. Many attendees have high "social capital". They consider themselves to have frequent contact with other members of the community, frequently read about politics and current affairs and discuss such issues with others. On these indicators, attendees at community cabinet rate much higher than the Australian average. Many have previously contacted a local representative or participated in other forms of political activity. Significantly, an overwhelming majority are members of community groups and/or clubs. The process, rather than creating social capital in the first instance, seems to draw upon it.
Surveys are useful means of evaluation but they also convey averages. It is not the case that any citizens are excluded from community cabinet, indeed they are designed to be open to all. People outside the dominant demographic also make use of the process, with contributions from less-established community-action groups and even some protest action. The effort made to take community cabinet meetings to remote communities draws the geographically isolated back into the political process.
COMMUNITY CABINET IS NOT THE PLACE FOR DEVELOPING broad-brush conceptual public policy, it is about micro politics. People come to talk about very specific issues. What it does allow is a level of access to ministers and senior bureaucrats that the normal bureaucratic process cannot offer. It is also not a site for collective deliberation and consensus in the manner of a New England town meeting or Athenian direct democracy. No votes are taken. Few decisions are made.
As it relies on, rather than develops, social capital, the main effect of the community cabinet process has been to build political capital. Electoral analysis is always tricky but the landslide result of the second Beattie election provides some support for the argument that community cabinet is good politics. The party had come through a very difficult period, with the forced resignation of the deputy premier, among others, as a result of an electoral rorting scandal – perfect fodder for the populist critique of "professional politicians"– but the result was a landslide. The surprise election result in Victoria in September 1999, where the successful Steve Bracks was probably even more surprised than the unsuccessful Jeff Kennett, perhaps bolsters the positive political claims of community cabinet. A premier seen as disconnected and aloof, even when he has presided over an economic turnaround, still fails to win the support of the people. To borrow and amend a slogan from the second Bill Clinton campaign: "It's not only the economy, stupid." But beyond the political capital it builds for the Labor government, it also rebuilds the stocks of the system of representative democracy itself.
It would be wrong, therefore, to see this as an exercise in cynical politicking. There are important differences, for example, between Beattie's populist manner and the populism espoused by One Nation or some independents, or even of the premiership of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. By using community cabinet as a key vehicle for connecting with regional and remote communities, Beattie is not only building important networks, but is also putting the institutional heart of government on public display. Community cabinet meetings direct attention to the legitimate workings of the institutions of representative government. They are a pragmatic institutional response to the populist's call for more direct democracy by providing an opportunity to air grievances without being anti-political or anti-institutional.
Of course, the Beattie Government knows the electoral advantages of community cabinet and has not been shy in encouraging other Labor governments to adopt the practice. However, the underlying political benefits may be more profound. In the regular, unrehearsed and unmediated contact with undiluted public sentiment, community cabinet keeps politicians grounded. It provides an early warning system for emerging issues and acts as a constant barometer of how the Government's message is being received. It brings benefits for bureaucrats. On a practical level, it provides many opportunities to meet with other department heads, allowing for better across-government co-ordination. In also bringing them in regular, direct contact with citizens, it makes them, sometimes painfully, aware how their central decision making can have unintended consequences when translated to the regions.
Community cabinet also plays an educative role. Cynicism about the practice of politics abounds in Australia, as elsewhere. Politicians regularly feature near the bottom of professional-esteem surveys but these are based on lack of knowledge of the function of government and of the federal system. Part of the populist criticism stems from the reality that much of the day-to-day work of representatives is largely invisible or only made visible through a necessarily selective, and often sensationalist, media process. If the community sees ministers "at work" more often, their legitimacy is enhanced. If nothing else, a citizen attending a community cabinet meeting gets a sense of the workings of responsible government – that there are ministers with specific responsibilities for particular functions and that they are "open for business".
THE CAPITAL-CITY MEDIA QUICKLY LOST INTEREST in the community cabinet phenomenon. Initial queries about costs and complaints of a political "stunt" have been answered with the ongoing commitment by the Premier that the meetings are an important part of political life in Queensland and they are here to stay. The lack of interest by the major media players is not shared by the local media in the regions where meetings are given full coverage before and after the event.
The Beattie commitment to community cabinet remains strong, despite the demands placed on ministers, advisers and bureaucrats by meetings every four weeks. They are expensive not only in terms of cost but in terms of time. There is some underlying resentment by some junior ministers who attend community cabinet meetings but are rarely called upon because of the nature of their portfolios. For these, community cabinet represents an imposition that is not rewarded with meaningful community dialogue. A more understandable explanation for resentment is one of fatigue – another weekend a month dedicated to duty, in addition to already hectic schedules. Beattie, however, runs a tight ship. The only time that the commitment to community cabinet was openly questioned was by former deputy premier Jim Elder, when the National Party staged a rally to coincide with a meeting and made some political capital out of it. Elder said that to continue community cabinet meetings was effectively giving the opposition a free kick and recommended that they be suspended. Beattie, who was out of the country at the time, on his return adamantly asserted they would continue. It should also be noted that after the second election win, as Beattie governed in his own right, he did not have to maintain any agreement with the independent, Wellington.
Despite early predictions to the contrary, community cabinet has outlasted the political cycle of the Beattie Government's first term and the One Nation Party. Nearly six years and one election on, the process continues without an end in immediate sight. Community cabinet meetings are now part of a plethora of consultative mechanisms under the wing of the community engagement division in the Premier's Department, which oversees regional forums, e-democracy and other consultation mechanisms. Given the maintenance of high levels of participation in community cabinet meetings, it seems the Queensland public has taken to them, consolidating their existence in the political landscape and silencing some early critics who saw them merely as stunts. Another indication of the positive regard for community cabinet meetings is the adoption of similar mechanisms in other Australian jurisdictions.
As a response to populism, their novelty was one way of attracting attention back to the process of government. Though the process looks set to continue, efficiency of time and resources will be ongoing priorities. In this regard a more focused process, with less duplication of input, might improve efficiency without reducing the effectiveness of community cabinet both as a means of communicating wishes to the government and placing the work of representatives on unmediated public view. Most importantly, for the process to be even more effective in developing better representative democracy, it will also need to encourage participation from a broader cross-section of the community and meet the challenge of non-participation.
Any consultation exercise risks generating unrealistic expectations. Does an exercise like this lead to higher community expectations? The public nature of the event and public discussion of the problems of politics to some extent alleviate this problem. Public discussion can lead people to see the complexity of the process and the multi-faceted nature of political and public policy problems. It is encouraging to note, for example, that the people themselves regulate the process, recognising that one point of view dominating the agenda will not lead to progress being made. In such a self-regulating public forum, responsible participation can develop as a reasonable conversation between representatives, bureaucrats and the people.
QUEENSLAND COMMUNITY CABINET MEETINGS HAVE UNIQUE FEATURES – it remains to be seen, for example, if other Australian Labor premiers have the same affinity for this type of event as Premier Beattie – but can also be seen in the context of an international "engaged government" trend. Recently, while visiting Brisbane, South African provincial government representatives reported on the popularity of similar events in South Africa. There, they anticipate attendances of upwards of 3000 people who are often anxious to make sure post-apartheid governments deliver on promises of better services to the community. These events have, in some cases, been much more confrontational, as politicians are forced to account for slow progress toward better living standards and the provision of more employment.
In the small university town where I am writing this, Blacksburg, Virginia, in the US, the most recent initiative of the local council is a citizens' academy, not designed to connect citizens to representatives but rather to provide training for those citizens who are interested in becoming elected representatives. This program is a reminder that in a system of representative democracy we still rely heavily on the capacities and willingness of the ultimate decision makers to provide good government and that the quality of "networks" is only one side of the good governance equation.
Democratic governments have had to respond to declining community trust and the rise of populist movements around the world. The demands in democracy for good government, balanced with popular control, mean that even in, or perhaps especially in, mature democracies we should expect outbreaks of populism. Some governments adopt the populist message and modify their policies to "meet" rather than "lead" the electorate. Populist demands, especially in their more offensive racist and xenophobic aspects, can also be addressed by a further appeal to the "ordinary people" – to rebuild a network trust in their political leadership and institutions. ♦