So maybe Tony Abbott can achieve the near-impossible: that is, fundamentally change his nature, personality and approach to work at such an advanced age and stage of his life. And therefore maybe he can also achieve the politically near-unthinkable and turn around personal opinion polls. And therefore maybe he can save his Prime Ministership.
Maybe.
Or we could just switch Australia to a presidential system and that could just save him, too. His failings of individualism and single-minded “captain’s calls” would be seen as the fine qualities of a strong-minded presidency and all his problems would be over … except for the recalcitrant congress that he’d probably have to deal with, but I’ll get to that.
I’m only half joking, and this argument isn’t a proxy for a reheated Republican debate. I’m starting to genuinely believe it’s time for Australia to rethink our political system and, looking at the dysfunctional mess our Federal Parliament has become, I can see more and more compelling arguments for a change to a presidency, with all the powers of one popularly elected leader but with the accountability of a bicameral house of elected representatives.
Stay with me for a bit.
I think Australia is ready for a president. In fact, I think we’ve been ready for one for quite a while.
The advent of so-called presidential-style politics in this country is no coincidence, nor is it a media confection. Australians, like voters around the world, have become increasingly disenchanted with political parties and often mediocre talent gathered within – membership has collapsed, political professionals have taken over, party platforms have completely lost their meaning and relevance. Voters appear to pay scant attention to the position of a party and instead focus all their hopes on one person, one leader.
Sure, that leader is supposed to be simply representative of the party, one person elected by the group to serve at the pleasure of the party, as the saying goes. Except that’s not how it has played out at all, at least not since John Howard’s time.
That’s when you started to see a PM open, launch, announce and be associated with virtually everything a government did. A PM who did more media interviews, more talkback radio than any other before or since; a PM who overshadowed all ministers and all portfolios; a PM who was asked and gave his opinion on virtually any topic on any day – and all PMs since have followed his lead. Since then, the leader of the party has assumed much greater authority and stature than even the party rooms have completely understood.
Some, like Kevin Rudd, believed their authority came directly from the people, president-like, and – while Abbott won’t like the comparison – he seems to believe something similar.
So why don’t we abandon the pretence that we vote for parties and instead elevate the one impressive person we think might actually have a vision for the country? Sure, that person will probably come from and within a political party, but the US style of creating government from a hand-selected group of specialised, often civilian, individuals to take on policy portfolios would be enormously attractive to an electorate fed up with underachievers and party flogs.
Large elements in the electorate yearn for the larger-than-life figure who can cut through party constraints and lead with conviction. In this political system, that’s seen as a hopeless and romantic notion. But with a president and the addition of a locally elected representative to a reversioned Parliament/Congress, we might just end up with true representation.
I don’t particularly care whether a monarch goes or stays. But if our leaders are going to keep behaving like one-person bands, then I’d at least like a direct say in who sings the song.
■ What do you think? Post a comment below
■ Virginia Trioli is co-host of ABC News Breakfast on ABC1 and ABC News 24, 6-9am weekdays.
■ Follow Virginia on Twitter: @latrioli
