POLITICAL CAREERS

Peter Costello comments on the need for aspiring politicians to join the game early, so as to acquire the necessary skills of the smooth, unruffled performance.

He makes the striking observation that many future leaders have started their political careers in the late twenties and early thirties, and he includes himself. Most of his selections are from the Liberal Party, although he mentions Bob Hawke as an exception, which he wasn’t. The intrusion into privacy that most citizens take for granted takes time to get used to. The art of talking without missteps in television studios and press conferences takes time to acquire. I think that is fair comment to observe that to be in the political limelight can be gratifying to the ego, but equally can be extremely damaging. There are case that have occurred.

Most politicians are not required to be frontline performers. They mostly vote according to the party dictate, otherwise pre-selection would be on the line, therefore re-election for both parties. There main concerns are to manage their small staffs and increasing numbers of constituents. I would have thought that the skills necessary would be those required by professional and management vocations, so I doubt whether Peter Costello’s advice applies to them the humble backbenchers.

The vagaries of the Senate voting give rise to another category of politician, illustrated by the case of Senators Fielding and Xenophon, who get to exercise a balance of power on critical issues. To me the striking thing about the Senate voting, I would cite the experience of NSW at the last election, that now separate Senate elections are history, is how little attention in terms of strategic voting the electors exercised.

Annabel Crabb, also in The Sydney Morning Herald mocks Steve Fielding for not been able to spell and for getting 29% in English – he did better than I. She writes:

AN ETHICAL problem presented itself yesterday, in Parliament House.

And it presented itself in the form of Senator Steve Fielding, who is the latest in a long line of boutique eccentrics to whom the Australian people, with their unerring collective ability to crack a joke at democracy’s expense, have assigned a casting vote in the upper house.

The conundrum began when Fielding, staging a routine press conference outside the Senate doors, spoke at length about the need for ”monetary policy” and ”physical policy” to be in line.

”You’re talking about fiscal policy, are you?” inquired the Nine Network’s Tim Lester cautiously, after Fielding’s third repetition of the phrase.

”That’s correct. Fiscal: F-I-S-K-A-L.” Now, Steve Fielding is an equal opportunity misspeller.

On Monday, he issued a press release in which he spelt his own name ”Fieldling”.

The trade in Fielding gaffes is one of the genuine surviving pleasures of politics, and yesterday’s boo-boo debuted very highly in the charts as you can probably imagine.

But Fielding quickly stilled the raucous hordes with an emotional account of his own childhood learning difficulties, and the fact he scored only 29 per cent for English at high school, despite earning high marks in other areas.

He told Channel Nine he viewed himself as a flag bearer for people with learning difficulties. ”How the hell does someone get into the Senate with 29 per cent for English?”

That’s the condescension – or condensation when I am in the kitchen (I must remember). At Cricky, Jason Whittaker simply says that Fielding, excuses aside, is incompetent and not up to the rigors of public debate, getting up back into the Costello view.

To me the fundamental question goes to the selection process for parliamentarians and then after ministers and prime ministers. The political parties are controlled by small groups and whatever democratic character a party has without mass participation, long now a thing of the past, they tend to run by narrow groups. It is a problem that many of those who would be able to make significant contributions may be downsides, some of which Peter Costello called attention to.

As citizens we might recognize more accurately the gifts of others, and encourage those who would be suitable to what be a perilous and deeply disappointing occupation to pursue it, despite our propensity to rain obloquy on them. I keep thinking that Socrates was an active citizen in Athenian democracy, and they had a lot system!

Advertisements