Kevin Rudd's determination to create the impression of a prime minister bursting with action and initiative has moved into overdrive with a plan to strip factional bosses of their power to make and break Labor leaders. Implementing the plan to have future leadership contests decided by a rank-and-file ballot in tandem with a caucus vote will be considered at a special gathering of Labor's caucus on Monday week, and early indications are that Mr Rudd will get his way. If so, it will be an unlikely victory for the forces of reform within Labor, the more given the chief architect of this move has until now exhibited no more enthusiasm for organisational restructures than was absolutely necessary.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Having been the stalker and the stalked, Mr Rudd knows all about the predilection of Labor's federal parliamentary caucus for harrying and bringing down leaders deemed by opinion polls to be out of favour with voters. Of the eight men and one women elected to lead parliamentary Labor since Gough Whitlam's resignation in 1977, only Paul Keating and Kim Beazley have stood down voluntarily following an election loss. One, Mark Latham, imploded as leader while the rest (including Mr Beazley in a second stint as leader) were removed as a result of the machinations of their party. With the exception of John Howard, the Liberal Party caucus has exhibited a similar fecklessness towards its leaders and reserved the right to remove under-performers.
The audacity of Mr Rudd seeking to deprive caucus of an entrenched and closely guarded prerogative just days after he made use of it himself to depose Julia Gillard will not be lost on his party-room enemies or the electorate. But the proposal may help Labor rebut the claims of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott that the ALP is run by and on behalf of the "faceless men'' of the union hierarchy.
That it is always open season in Australian politics - to use the words of Queensland academic Patrick Weller - clearly is a hindrance to good government and administration. The requirement to remain competitive in the two-party preferred vote count and not to slip too far behind in the preferred prime minister stakes means leaders are generally loath to commit to anything that might court electoral unpopularity. The result is a body politic where slogans and superficiality are the norm, along with a reluctance to discuss complex issues.
Which is not to say the Australian model has no virtues whatever. Political scientists point to the fact that direct elections promote discipline, cohesion and unity of purpose. And where party leaders are dependent on the support of their colleagues they generally play close attention to their concerns. John Howard's longevity as prime minister owed a great deal to his willingness to monitor what his backbenchers were thinking, and taking account of their concerns.
Parties in other Westminster-style democracies such as Canada and Britain have been granting members greater say in the choice of leaders for years now. This is on the grounds that it precludes against the instability that can result from the direct election of party leaders and because it gives the rank and file a greater sense of ownership in their party's affairs. Indeed, the Liberal Party of Canada elects its leaders at a US-style convention where members (and supporters) can cast a ballot in person or by phone. Labor and the Liberals could arrest their declining memberships in a trice were they minded to go down a similar road.
Indirect methods of electing leaders are not without their drawbacks, however. It's still possible for unions and other groups affiliated to parties to pervert election processes, and much money, time and resources can be squandered in long and drawn-out leadership contests. Removing leaders clearly deserving of dismissal can also become a morale-sapping exercise. In insisting that no sitting Labor leader could be removed by force unless three-quarters of caucus signed a petition demanding he or she grant a challenge, Mr Rudd has set the bar quite high. However reluctant caucus might be to adopt this particular reform, the case for it to acquiesce to at least some change looks compelling.
