Is the adversarial nature of politics doomed? Despite what some members of the 47th Parliament often say, such as the Teals and the Prime Minister, the age of political consensus, collaboration, and cooperation is not on the rise. So-called examples of ‘consensus’, such as from Labor’s Jobs and Skills Summit, are merely perverse marketing ploys.
The adversarial system isn’t going anywhere and nor should it. It’s likely that the calls from many in the broader community to see less of it is caused by a widespread misunderstanding of its purpose. And to be fair, the fact the system’s present manifestation is slightly warped doesn’t help the situation.
Senator Pocock in the Australian Financial Review recently expressed his frustration with the adversarial nature of politics, implying that it needed to change. Unquestionably, this reflects the sentiment of many in the community. The drama that invariably occurs in question time is often cited as an example of what a joke the adversarial system of politics is. But expecting politicians to find common ground on every issue is naive. The values and interests of the Australian populous are just too diverse.
Undoubtedly, consensus, collaboration, and cooperation are worthy values, and seeing them genuinely arise in politics is a positive thing. However, seeing these values used as a guise to implement preordained policy is deplorable. In addition to the faux consensus surrounding the jobs summit, the fact the Albanese government frequently discusses policy with some of the Teals is another fraudulent example of cooperation.
Mark Dreyfus KC is reportedly in discussion with Helen Haines on the proposed federal integrity commission when her vote isn’t needed to pass the bill in the Lower House. In addition to making Labor look like the government of collaboration, a word Albanese has repeated ad nauseam, it serves an ulterior purpose of making the Teals appear impactful, hence stopping the Liberals from regaining their former seats.
Adversarial politics is inextricably linked to democratic systems of government. Throughout all iterations of democracy starting in ancient Athens, political opponents have been pitted against each other in the hope that the best man wins. This practice is based on the same premise with which we all implicitly acknowledge every time we enter a debate (even when done through op-eds).
To see its usefulness by way of analogy, one only need look at our adversarial judicial system. A criminal trial isn’t a fact-finding exercise. Rather, it’s hoped that the truth will be revealed indirectly by the prosecution and defence zealously advocating their positions. And the truth often rests where there is the most friction.
Even the practice of cross-examination has striking similarities to question time, not excluding the theatre. Relevantly, Justice Wigmore once described cross-examination as the ‘greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth’. While question time isn’t precisely the same, its underlying principles are identical.
Admittedly, both adversarial systems aren’t absolutely efficient. But the costs arising from the inefficiencies are a necessary expense of the adversarial nature of politics being entirely consistent with democratic principles. To that end, Alexis de Tocqueville, referring to 19th Century American democracy, observed that:
‘The debates of that great assembly are frequently vague and perplexed, seeming to be dragged rather than to march, to the intended goal. Something of this sort must, I think, always happen in public democratic assemblies.’
Where the confusion with the adversarial system appears to arise, is that there seems to be a popular belief that partisan politics is the inevitable manifestation of the system. This is incorrect. It’s merely an unavoidable bug the system experiences from time-to-time, which Tocqueville refers to. Partisan politics means we’re talking past each other, thereby not allowing the friction to generate the sublime ideas we’ve devised in the past. However, as historians like to remind us, this too shall pass (and no doubt return again).
The kernel of truth in any matter can only ever be revealed through rugged debate. So it is that, despite its flaws, the adversarial nature of politics is still the best way of yielding the most meritorious ideas. Believing there is a democratic alternative is not only naive, but it creates an opportunity for the political class to hoodwink the public. How else does one characterise the instances of ‘consensus’ we’re supposedly seeing?
