John Ruddick Wednesday 18 February 2015
John Ruddick was a candidate for federal president of the Liberal Party in 2014.
Liberal party members should elect our parliamentary leader. Our archaic, undemocratic system needs reform – for the nation’s sake
‘The parliamentary leadership of the Liberal party has experienced periods of instability since Peter Costello’s attempt to topple John Howard in mid-2006.’ Photograph: AAP
A generation ago, the Liberal party room was populated by people who had typically achieved something before seeking election, not apparatchiks. But today our party rooms are increasingly populated by those who have followed a familiar trajectory: campus politics crusader, Young Liberal activist, staffer and then faction fighter, culminating in a pre-selection win.
Their adult lives have been all about moving up the political ladder by immersing themselves in political intrigue, sly tactical moves and number crunching. It is their whole world. When you give this cadre the power to hire and fire parliamentary leaders, it is likely they will spend a fair bit of time hiring and firing parliamentary leaders.
Coalition voters split over whether Tony Abbott should be dumped – poll
Essential poll finds 48% of Coalition voters believe Abbott should stay on as leader until the next election, due in 2016
Then, when we get to the party room, our archaic, undemocratic system says that ministers – a third of all votes – are obliged to cast ballots for the leader. Do they do this? In a secret ballot; who can say? Too many parliamentarians vote according to their guiding principle in countless earlier ballots: “What’s in it for me?”
Others will vote for a candidate they believe will give them a ministerial promotion or some other type of preferment. A change of leader brings with it a significant turnover of the ministry, so ambitious backbenchers become preoccupied with undermining a leader who has overlooked their obvious talent.
The way to cure these ailments is simple: tens of thousands of everyday party members should elect our state and federal parliamentary leaders. In this respect, Labor is right and the Liberal party is wrong. We look even more isolated when you consider that among the Anglo sphere nations, the National party of New Zealand and the Liberal party of Australia are the only parties to persist in denying their rank and file membership a vote for the parliamentary leadership.
Nationwide and state-wide ballots to allow the grassroots of our party to elect our parliamentary leaders would foster robust policy debate, rejuvenate the party membership and bring stability and increased authority to the leader’s office.
Membership-wide plebiscites would transform leadership contests from the realm of intrigue, leaks, plotting and murky deals among a few dozen self-interested parliamentarians, into contests that reward merit and that essential political quality, popularity. After all, as Ian Hancock wrote in his history of the NSW Liberal party:
The ideal leader is one who is both principled and popular. It’s better to be principled rather than popular … but of course it is better to have both. The system that will most likely deliver that outcome is one where the membership votes for the parliamentary leader.
The parliamentary leadership of the Liberal party has experienced periods of instability since Peter Costello’s attempt to topple John Howard in mid-2006. The cycle of confidence and collapse is getting shorter. Under the rule of the Twitters here, this pattern will continue – until we embrace this obvious democratic reform.
The results speak for themselves: when David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative party in 2005, around 235,000 everyday party members participated in the ballot. A year earlier, Stephen Harper was elected leader of the Canadian Conservatives by almost 100,000 members. Cameron and Harper have not faced a spill in a decade. The New Zealand Labour party recently had 50,000 members participate; the Australian Labor party had around 40,000.
Those parliamentarians who believe the current system might make them future leaders must befriend as many of their parliamentary colleagues as possible. The press, public and the party membership are of some importance, but you only need 50 or so votes to become prime minister or premier. Securing the magic number overrides other considerations.
It would be far preferable for ambitious future leaders to have a long-term strategy to convince the membership (and by extension, the public and the press) of a coherent and creative policy outlook. We would see more insightful and forward looking arguments in the public square, made with daring, that address the nation’s future and excite the tens of thousands of centre-right true believers who form the Liberal party’s membership.
Liberal party members see political engagement as a basically healthy hobby which, we persuade ourselves, is part of our civic duty. How would ballots work, then? A convention open to all party members would be held in one state after another over the course of a month. Those living outside metropolitan centres would have the convention live streamed and participate in the vote. The prospective leaders would need to stand before thousands and make the case as to why they should lead.
Candidates would have to spell out their policy and leadership agenda. Importantly, the media would be invited inside to broadcast and report the speeches and campaigns. This would introduce candidates and their campaigns to the public and (hopefully) inspire others to join the party so they can participate in future leadership ballots.
Many parliamentarians bitterly oppose ballots for members. No-one likes to give up power and privilege. Others may actively campaign for it, were it seriously on the table, either out of high principle or on their chance of winning a plebiscite. Party rules, however, change within the organisation. The membership must agitate. We must ask candidates for our state and national executive, and candidates for pre-selection, to declare on which side of the battle they stand – on the side of a broken system that is increasingly corroding our politics or on the side of an obvious reform that will enrich our party and nation.
