National mourning, which we are seeing around the world at the moment as a consequence of the MH17 airline tragedy, is spontaneous but also requires leadership. Some individuals are cast as mourners-in-chief because of the positions they hold. For many individuals it must be one of the most difficult things they ever have to do in their public life. Rewarding, perhaps, but also extremely difficult.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
For some leaders it is well outside their comfort zone. Whatever experience they have had, unless they are clergy or medical professionals, it is something for which they are untrained. All that can be asked of leaders in such situations is sincerity and honesty, but mourners on behalf of the nation can also be judged by community standards. For anyone to be judged to have failed in such circumstances is most unfair but nevertheless some are.
The way a nation mourns provides perspectives not just on individuals but, more importantly, on our cultural understandings and on our national institutions. The current tragedy provides some opportunity to reflect on ourselves as a nation. It should be said, though, that this is an unusual case of national mourning because, unlike a natural disaster, this one is a mixture of international politics and grief. It is more like a wartime tragedy than one brought on by an earthquake or a fire.
Five general points can be made about this example of national mourning in Australia.
First, leading national mourning is primarily a job for senior elected or appointed leaders. This means prime ministers and premiers among the elected and governors-general and governors among the appointed. At St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney Mr and Mrs Abbott were flanked in the front row by Sir Peter and Lady Cosgrove on their right and Dame Marie Bashir, Governor of New South Wales, on their left. Opposition leaders are essentially left behind. State opposition leaders hardly matter at all. This has clear political implications.
Second, the style of our mourning reflects our federal nation. The reporting of the Australian deaths was from the very earliest based around categorising the deaths into states and territories. The number of Victorians, Queenslanders, and so on was seen as highly important. This seemed to our media the obvious way to do it. It is a simple point but one that is highly reflective of how we see ourselves. The dead were not calculated by gender, ethnicity or city/country but by state. State-based media followed up accordingly.
As a consequence of this regional emphasis state premiers were afforded a high profile on the rolling news provided by ABC News 24. They were almost treated as the equivalent of our national leaders. One of the earliest leaders to issue a televised public statement was Queensland Premier Campbell Newman, who spoke particularly of the impact of the tragedy on his fellow Queenslanders. This was quite striking. Later Victorian Premier Dennis Napthine followed Newman into the public eye. He at least played another role as the political leader of the state hosting the big international HIV/AIDS conference and could take responsibility for the associated questions related to that conference.
Third, as something above party politics, national mourning constitutionally should be led by heads of state or their representatives. Australia’s situation as a monarchy represented by a governor-general complicates this division of authority. My impression has been that in this instance the Governor-General has very much played second fiddle to the Prime Minister. This is perhaps unavoidable given the mix of international politics and mourning, and given the need for a snap reaction by our leadership, but it is still notable. The Prime Minister has been the mourner-in-chief above all others. At another time it may be different and on later formal occasions related to the MH17 deaths the Governor-General may rise in precedence, but he has not yet done so.
The fourth point concerns church-state relations. Our public mourning has been conducted in various arenas, including work-places, schools and football fields as well as embassies and legislative assemblies, but religious ceremonies have stood out.
The most obvious example has been the Sunday Mass at St Mary’s Catholic Cathedral, in Sydney, presided over by Bishop Peter Comensoli. A lot is said about the decline of religious observance in a secular Australia but in times of mourning religious ceremonies seem to become paramount. Our leaders, personally religious or not, take part enthusiastically in these ceremonies. Those leaders, like Tony Abbott and Peter Cosgrove, both observant Christians, must find such participation just that little bit easier and more comfortable. The same is true when the spiritual language of ''prayers for the dead and the families of the dead'' dominates our public responses.
The final point, which must be made even in the middle of mourning, is that the tragedy may have domestic political implications. The implications may not just be for our national responses to the war against terror but in the popularity of the Prime Minister and the federal Coalition government.
The awful tragedy comes at a time when both are lagging badly in the polls. It will be interesting to see how their performance is judged a month from now. Certainly our national attention has been switched dramatically from the budget and the unpredictable events in the Senate. We have a new perspective. Traditionally the high-profile afforded the leader of the day on such occasions pays dividends for the government at least in the short term.
John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University.
