Of mandates and furphies
mandate, noun: 2: the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.
With the election over, we now move to consideration of the often tetchy issue of who has a mandate to do what, with what and to whom.
The mandate theory of democratic governance has it that a government has both the right and the responsibility to enact the proposals to which it committed in the preceding election campaign. And presumably it’s a winner-takes-all situation in which the margin of an electoral victory has no implication for the mandate supposedly earned.
There are a number of issues with this and a number of ways in which talk of ‘a mandate’ can overreach.
First, it might be interpreted in such a way as to discourage or preclude a new government from changing its mind on something promised during the campaign. The belief that politicians and, in particular, Prime Ministers should never ever change their mind is one of the silliest and most damaging characteristics of government in Australia.
We are familiar with the situation in which, when there is change in the Party occupying the Treasury benches, the new government argues that because it was not in possession of the full details of the financial situation inherited it is unable to meet all the commitments it made. This is an entirely reasonable position to take, with the only possible criticism being that, in the national interest, there ought to be more transparency about the nation’s true financial situation at any given time.
For instance, right here and now, if the Coalition is guided by the apparent widespread opposition to the freezing of Medicare rebates and decides to end the freeze earlier than 1 July 2018, will it be accused of reneging on its mandate? Can it use the mandate argument as a reason for not unfreezing it early?
A reasonable interpretation of the mandate theory is that the Party or Parties that won the election have a general mandate to govern. It is annoying and illogical for a new government to claim a mandate for a swag of specific issues as if, when people cast their vote, they were aware of and supported every single commitment in a particular Party’s platform.
In Government that Party should still engage with the public in explaining and justifying the need for and the fairness of particular new policy proposals, whose existence and details may have remained completely unknown to individuals when they cast their vote.
A third issue relating to a mandate is the relationship between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Government can claim a mandate on the basis of winning the majority of seats in the Lower House. But the Senate and its individual members can claim a mandate to review – particularly on behalf of the less populous jurisdictions – given the voters’ decision not to give the Government control of the Senate.
This situation is tailor-made for fractiousness and opposition – two features of our system of government we are currently being asked to forego in order to ensure no further deterioration in the nation’s economic future.
And have a care for the position of the Leader of an Opposition after an election. He or she has no mandate from the public but it would be passing strange for someone in their position to provide nothing but support for the Government until the time when the next election is called. The Westminster system relies on there being an Opposition at all times, not just for the duration of an election campaign. Its duty is to provide alternative ways and means of doing government business.
Reference to a global mandate cannot reasonably be used as the rationale for limiting debate and criticism of specific proposals.
Finally, political parties and those who comment on them cannot have it all ways where electoral success or failure is concerned. Either seats are won and lost on the basis of local issues and the qualities of local candidates; or people vote on the basis of the full set of national policies enunciated in a particular Party’s electoral platform; or people are swayed by perceptions of the individuals who lead the major parties.
Of course the reality is that it’s a mix of all three of these things.
This mix and the complexity involved in individuals’ voting decisions should be considered by people using ‘the mandate argument’ as justification for particular policy proposals.
gg
12 July 2016