I've been reflecting on a conversation I had during election day.  Some one from Family First made a comment to me that, "it's about issues, not ideology," in response to my saying I was Christian but found them too left-wing, which struck me as odd.

How can politics not be about ideology?

At first I wondered if I had too long, be reading essays from right-wing think tanks and ranting about the evils of authoritarianism to be blinded to this idea.  Perhaps even our last decent Prime Minister, JH, had taken this approach in his idea of choosing the popular solution (aka give the people what they want) rather than tending toward one brand of ideology which falls under the 'Liberal' umbrella.

Or perhaps this guy was just not a strategic thinker.  Which is the conclusion I've now come to.

You see issues, represent happenings in the microcosm of politics and society.  They are important as the affect people on a daily basis and they will form opinions on these issues.  However they are the domain of a tactical thinker.  Also only dealing with issues, and even trying to think ahead about them, will only take you so far.  In corporate management, these people are the middle managers, and generally if they are poor at what they do, they spend their time fire fighting, rather than progressing.  The Queensland State government is brilliant at this.

What is more important, however, than solving problems, is making sure that there is some overarching scheme to what you're doing.  Something that determines the direction that society and the government is taking, rather than just the random, haphazard path that "the issues" that arise form.  The most popular or pragmatic decision, may actually, long term, lead a country away from the path to development and benefiting all it's citizens.  It can also distract from determining a direction.  To return the analogy to the business world, the point of having a board of directors or senior management, is to make sure things are on track on a big scale.  That market predictions are made, that a strategy is set out.  This is what ideology does for politics and governement.  It keeps it on track and gives it an overarching purpose.  It determines what kind of society addressing all those issues will produce.  To not have ideology or to be dismissive of it, is for a party or a politician not to take their job seriously.

On a practical basis, this is why I have issues, with not only Family First, but also the Democrats.  They have the very best of intentions, they just don't articulate them well enough to form a cohesive ideological base, let alone a cohesive policy base.  Additionally not having a basis for their decision making, means that their parties are more open to being run in a very dictatorial way.  The party members may find it difficult to determine what is the right way to treat an issue and debates then become a challenge to follow the dominant power holders.

The closest example I can think of is in a religious organisation.  It is vitally important that members of a church group have the scriptures accessible and are familiar with them.  The reason being is that way they have the word of God and can then put their faith in God, not on the word of their teachers and leaders.  Christians especially have seen prior to the reformation how ignorance of the Bible can lead to unscrupulous people controling the body of believers.  This is equally applicable in organisations based on political beliefs.  If a member of the organisation does not understand the ideological base of the organisation, how can they know what the party does and doesn't stand for?  How can they keep their power brokers accountable?  It would never be in the interest of a union for it's members not to understand that collective bargaining can be good for empolyees and employers, it would never be in the interest of a Liberal to not understand that government should be designed to give individuals and families the maximum choices possible.  How can it be in the interest of the members of smaller parties not to understand where they stand on an ideological, strategic basis?

I've decided it will never be about issues, but who has the correct ideological basis to deal with them.

Share on Facebook