In Marriage equality and greyhounds (10 August) I explain why, in my view, there need not be a plebiscite on marriage equality. And in the piece entitled Of mandates and furphies (12 July) I try to explain my irritation at the way our Parliamentary leaders talk about their “mandate” as if those who voted for them explicitly agree with every element of the package their Party took to the election.
My view is that, having won an election, the victor only has one mandate and that is to form government. It still needs to explain, justify and promote specific proposals for change to everyone, rather than taking those things as read and taking the people for granted.
If there is a plebiscite, it is to be hoped – most earnestly – that the process in which we engage is characterised by respect, generosity of spirit and good will, so that Australia’s social cohesion is further enhanced.
One of the issues that will arise is how individual Members and Senators should act once the people of their electorates and State/Territory have had their say. Should they be bound by the majority view of their electorate, in the case of members of the House of Representatives, or by the majority view of their jurisdiction in the case of Senators? Should they be bound by the majority national view? Or should they only be bound by their own individual opinion even if it is contrary to that of the majority of their electors?
Those parliamentarians who choose the last of these three courses might be thought of as using ‘the Bristol defence’, created by Edmund Burke (1729-1797), the man who brought us the T-shirt we have all seen on the streets:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
This and several other of the recorded quotations from the speeches and writings of Edmund Burke (1729-1797) are so familiar as to seem more like aphorisms than quotations from actual statements made by a real person. Added together, they read today like a Manual for Effective Advocacy on Good Causes.
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.
Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Our patience will achieve more than our force.
We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature.
The arrogance of age must submit to be taught by youth.
Frugality is founded on the principal that all riches have limits.
It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity – the law of nature and of nations.
It is interesting to speculate about how a man capable of such generous and humane statements would view the issues involved in the debate about marriage equality. I would like to think that he would be driven to support marriage equality by one of the three reasons normally given to explain his scepticism about democracy. This can be seen in the context of another of his quotable quotes:
In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority.
Specifically he feared that democracy would create a tyranny over unpopular minorities, who would therefore need the protection of the upper classes. It might be said that this has been the position faced by those with a personal stake in seeking marriage equality in Australia.
For the sake of completeness, let us record the other two reasons behind Burke’s lack of trust in democracy. The first was his belief that good government requires a degree of intelligence and breadth of knowledge of the sort that occurred rarely among the common people. (Our current-day leaders frequently remind us about how smart we are as the mugs who elect them.) The second was his fear that “the passions of the common people could be aroused by demagogues, leading to the potential loss of cherished traditions and established religion, and to violence and the confiscation of property”.
It is not surprising that after more than two centuries these reservations seem very dated. However it is worth reminding ourselves that Edmund Burke had a clear understanding of what, these days, would be called the national interest and in this regard was well ahead of his time
Because of its relevance, let’s consider more of the Bristol story and, to enjoy the beauty of the language, let much of it be done in Edmund Burke’s original words.
In 1774, Edmund Burke was elected the Member of Parliament for Bristol, at the time England’s second city – a seat for which there was a real electoral contest.
In May 1778, his constituents – citizens of a great trading city – urged Burke to oppose free trade with Ireland. He resisted, saying:
“If, from this conduct, I shall forfeit their suffrages at an ensuing election, it will stand on record an example to future representatives of the Commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him they were wrong”.
This shouldn’t have come as a surprise to the Electors of Bristol. Burke’s thoughts on the matter had been spelled out in his speech to them on 3 November 1774, just after they had elected him!
“Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs, – and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.
But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure, – no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
“Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.”
His support for this and other causes that were not popular with the gentlemen of Bristol led to Burke losing his seat in 1780. For the rest of his parliamentary career he represented Malton, a pocket borough under the patronage of the Marquess of Rockingham, leader of the Whig faction.
Current Australian parliamentarians wishing to adopt ‘the Bristol position’ should consider what has changed since 1778 in the relationship between parliamentarians and the people.
And they might also want to consider just one more of the T-shirts designed by Edmund Burke:
“Nothing turns out to be so oppressive as feeble government.”