The basic assumption underlying the principles of democracy is that people are able to effectively choose between various political options. In that light, we also must be able to compare different politicians or political parties form the past to see which of them was better. Now, in forming those judgments a lot of political theories hold that we have to have certain standards of measurement. Different scholars hold different opinions about what those standards need to be; however, three criteria have been used most often in political discourse and these are – prudence, legitimacy and consensus. This essay compares two mid-twentieth century Australian Prime Ministers, John Curtin and Ben Chifley, by using those three criteria.
Before beginning the comparison, it might be best to mention two problems that an assessment of this type can have with these two politicians. Firstly, Curtin was the Prime minister of Australia during WWII. Being a leader of a nation during a great war is a very difficult task; however, citizens tend to respect and support their leaders more firmly in such situations. Secondly, both of these politicians came from the Labor Party and adhered to similar political principles and given the fact that Chifley came to office shortly after Curtin’s death it becomes difficult to judge what would have been the course of events if Curtin had remained in charge.
Firstly, the criterion of prudence has emerged from the work of political theorists interested in bridging the gap between politics and ethics. For a long time, it was thought that politics and ethics were in reality two distinct domains and no connection could be made between them. Machiavelli famously said, “The man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore, if a prince wants to maintain the rule he must learn how not to be virtuous (Machiavelli & Bull, 2003, p. 91).” Nonetheless, it has remained a matter for a debate and some of the recent authors have tried to bridge the gap. White (1978, p. 273), concludes that for the right decision in politics to be reached morality and politics, even though they are vast topics, are all that is relevant and those concepts remain open for a debate.
From this line of reasoning, came an attempt at defining the concept of political prudence. Patrick Dobel claims that political leaders have an obligation of acting morally, having some foresight into the consequences of their decisions, being open to debate and experience, choosing appropriate means to the ends that they find important and trying to keep their decisions legitimate (Dobel, 1998, p. 75).
When using this criterion in order to see which politician of the two was more successful, I would have to say that in my personal view, Curtin ranks higher. From all his most important political actions, I would single out one which demanded a lot of courage and self-esteem and that is the decision to make a connection with United States during WWII. In his famous New Year’s address, Curtin stated that there is no way Australia can be defended from Japan’s invasion unless American troops are there to help them. He then established a contact with an important American general who was to represent Australian interests in Washington. Given the tight historical connections Australia had with Britain, this was a radical move and both Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt saw it as a bad decision (Edwards, 2002).
This action did change the direction of Australia’s international relations from one oriented strictly towards Britain to one more open and closer to the United States but it was the only way to preserve its sovereignty. However, there is one political action of his that, to an extent, spoils the picture of Curtin as, otherwise, very prudent politician and that is his attempt at having the government control the market almost completely for the sake of restoration after the war through a referendum. Even though the Labor Party had previously won an overwhelming majority of votes, this attempt failed and left a stain in his, otherwise, great political career (Miller, 1966, pp. 110-125).
Chifley, on the other hand, despite the fact that he had great success in restoring Australia’s economy after WWII, made two great mistakes that possibly caused him to, in the end, lose the office. Firstly, it seems that he was too radical and too quick in carrying out his socialist plans. His administration holds the record for the number of passed bills, they passed 299 bills in three years and most of those bills were related to social security measures and taxation (Social Services and Immigration). Secondly, many people feel that he made a catastrophic mistake when he decided to break a strike in coal industry by using armed forces since that undermined the idea of him as a protector of the working class.
Turning now to the question of legitimacy, the concept has to be explained in relation to other connected notions – authority and power. First off, power is defined as the ability to impose one’s will on others. From that, we can see that this can be achieved through either legitimate or illegitimate means. Illegitimate means can be of many kinds and we distinguish blackmail, threat and other means of coercion. On the other hand, if a person is granted the right to make decisions on behalf of others then it can be said that their power is legitimate and that they have the authority to exercise that power (Mulligan, 2006).
In democratic institutions or governments, this distinction is of crucial importance since in such institutions, the minority of those who have the power to make decisions on behalf of others get their legitimacy from the people who elect them. If an individual or a group usurps that power without getting the trust of the people, then it can be said that their power is illegitimate and they have no authority (Hopfl, 1999, p. 220). When assessing actions of a politician, this dimension is of great importance.
Certainly, neither of the two politicians was usurping power nor was he without legitimacy since both of them were elected through democratic institutions. However, it might be possible to talk about whose rule had more legitimacy and, in that aspect, I would have to say that Chifley ranks higher. This is because of two reasons. Firstly, Curtin’s administration took place during WWII and it is very difficult to speak about legitimacy of power in a time of war. It is well-known that leading a country during wartime demands making important decisions on a daily basis and there is often no time for consulting the public opinion. Moreover, Curtin’s first government was a minority one and was a result of a spilt in the previous government (Miller, 1966, pp. 56-60). In my opinion, the possibility of forming minority governments and redistributing people’s support after the elections is a serious problem of democratic institutions. Therefore, I conclude that Chifley’s administration was more legitimate than that of Curtin.
The last criterion that we are going to use when comparing these two politicians is consensus. Now, contrary to what people might initially think, the word consensus, used in this context, does not denote any sort of agreement. Heffernan (2002, p. 746) points out that in politics, consensus denotes a defined political framework or a set of ideas which are implied in the political discourse of a country. It consists of shared values which are not questioned and not open for a debate and which open up a variety of diverse opinions about possible ways in which society can be improved within that political terrain. A major political shift in a country, therefore, happens when that field of discourse or framework is shifted or changed by economic, social, cultural or historical factors. To illustrate this, Heffernan uses the example of a major shift from social democratic discourse to neo-liberal one that took place in the late 1970s in Great Britain (Heffernan, 2002, p. 746). As a more recent example, we can take European countries of former Eastern Bloc, which, after the fall of the Berlin wall, shifted their political discourse in the domain of economy from planned to free-market economy.
This criterion can be used as well when trying to evaluate work of a particular politician or, as in this case, comparing two politicians, because it enables us to see in which way they influenced the political consensus of the period. If we find that they had an impact, it is essential that we determine whether it lead the discourse in the right or wrong direction. This, of course, introduces a lot of subjectivity into the evaluation since we have to approach the question with predefined set of value judgments. In addition, we can never be sure in which way the historical flow could have continued if it had not been for that particular politician. Nonetheless, it seems that we have to be able to pass certain judgments if we want to maintain the claim that we can draw conclusions from historical data.
In my view, Curtin was much better at dealing with political consensus in this sense and I might even say that Chifley’s actions in this domain contributed to the difficulties welfare state faced in Australia. Through a series of social reforms, ranging from pensions for wartime widows to welfare benefits, Curtin introduced Social Democracy into the political discourse of Australia (McMullin, 1991, p. 110). The ability to change the political framework of a country in good direction is a characteristic of a truly remarkably politician. Now, I realize that some people might find that leading a country towards social democracy is wrong so the question can, in the end be reduced to differences in political opinions.
On the other hand, such an appraisal cannot be given to Chifley. Even though he did try to change the political consensus even further, which is a move that demands a lot of courage, we cannot say that he did it neither in the right manner, nor in the right direction. Instead of slowly building upon the principles established by Curtin, Chifley took more radical direction and, in a way, even approached the radical left end of the political spectrum. In addition to the increase in taxes and passing of Social Services Consolidation Act from 1947 he tried to nationalize the banking sector, a move which provoked a huge public outcry and reduced the popularity of the Labor Party (Laidler & White, 199, p. 91). Actions such as these are a real sign that a politician is not able to deal with the political consensus. In other words, he was not able to predict which of the actions he took would be too radical for the standards of the period. If a politician is unable to deal with the political consensus, even if the political moves in question are in themselves good, he is, almost always, bound to fail.
In conclusion, when comparing John Curtin and Ben Chifley against the criteria of prudence, legitimacy and consensus, one can conclude that Curtin was a better politician. Even though it has been concluded that the legitimacy of Chifley’s administration was at a higher level, Curtin still had better results when it comes to prudence and consensus. Finally, one should repeat that bearing in mind that Curtin’s administration took place during WWII and both of them stemmed from Social-Democratic political tradition, it is very difficult to claim that this is a final word. Nonetheless, it is certain that both of them were really and enthusiastically devoted to their visions and for that we have to give them credit, especially because it seems that our generation truly lacks politicians, like the two of them, who have the courage to try to make changes where it really matters.
References
Dobel, P 1998, ‘Political Prudence and the Ethics of Leadership’, Public Administration Review, vol. 58, pp. 74-81.
Edwards, P 2002, History Conference – Remembering 1942 Another look at Curtin and MacArthur. Home | Australian War Memorial, Web.
Laidler, R & White, S 1991, Australia 1900-1950: light on the hill, Edward Arnold. Melbourne.
Heffernan, R 2002, ‘The Possible as the Art of Politics: Understanding Consensus Politics’, Political Studies, vol. 20, pp. 742-760.
Hopfl, H M 1999, Power, Authority and Legitimacy, ‘Human Resource Development International’, vol. 2, pp. 217-236.
Machiavelli, N & Bull, G 2003, ‘The prince’, Penguin Books, London.
McMullin, R 1991, The light on the hill: the Australian Labor Party 1891-1991, Oxford, Melbourne.
Miller, R E 1966, Light on the hill, Beacon Press, Boston.
Mulligan, S 2006, ‘The Uses of Legitimacy in International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, vol. 34, pp. 349-360.
Social Services and Immigration n.d., John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library. 2012. Web.
White, D M 1978, ‘The Right Decision in Politics’, Politics, vol. 3, pp. 273-285.