|
Research Note no. 29 2001-02
Conservatism in Australian National Politics
Glen Worthington
Politics and Public Administration
19 February 2002
Conservatism
For Edmund Burke and Australians of a like mind, the essence
of conservatism lies not in a body of theory, but in the disposition to
maintain those institutions seen as central to the beliefs and practices
of society.(1)
Conservatives value:
- the authority of institutions, grounded in their familiarity
to those who participate in them
- institutions that have stood the test of time, proving
their value against the uncertain consequences of unnecessary innovation
- individuals who can equip themselves with the appropriate
skills to respond to the diverse and contingent requirements of their
society, and
- authoritative institutions that provide support for individuals
to live securely and well.
Conservatives view society as a moral community, rather
than as an association pursuing a common purpose, whether this is understood
as the maximisation of pleasure, production, freedom or equality. Institutions
such as family, church and state emerge from, and give shape to, the moral
beliefs and practices that constitute society.
However, whereas moral practices change gradually but inevitably,
institutions require deliberate amendment if they are to remain relevant
to the changing practices over which they preside. This must be done with
care, because the maintenance of the authority of society's central institutions
is of paramount importance in providing moral order.
Although conservatives see values such as freedom and equality
as important, these are not seen as ultimate goals. Critics therefore
attack the conservative preference to protect familiar social institutions
as a sign that they lack an idea of moral progress.
However, conservatives do not resist change per se, but
rather certain types of change. Thus, they do not seek to conserve for
the sake of mere conservation, but rather to maintain particular sets
of practices and arrangements, which they see as underpinning the moral
life of individuals and the community.
Conservatives resist change that:
- is driven by abstract theories
- is systemic and all-encompassing rather than targeted
and piecemeal
- imposes a single aim upon society, and
- weakens the authority of social institutions, and thus
individual responsibility.
The main political problem for society is not an absence
of moral values and directions, but the pragmatic question of how far
one ought to alter an institution in order to preserve its relevance to
society. While institutions need to change, change that is too frequent
or too radical dissipates the authority of institutions and risks unintended
undesirable social and political consequences.
Conservatism in Australia
Among those who have been grouped on the 'conservative side
of politics' in Australia are social conservatives of the type described
in the previous section, as well as Empire nationalists, organisations
supporting rural interests, anti-socialist Catholics, fundamentalist Christians
and free-market liberals. This loose alliance has primarily been based
on an anti-socialist agenda of opposition to collectivism, theories of
class conflict and an idealised view of social justice. It has primarily
sought to keep the Australian Labor Party (ALP) from office.
Australian conservatives are more readily characterised
by what they reject than by any shared set of values.
However, many argue:
- for the importance of individual responsibility
- for the social importance of extra-government institutions
such as families, churches, small businesses and mutual aid societies
- for the importance of strong and decisive (but not necessarily
big) government
- for the importance of national interest and security
- against most proposals for constitutional change, and
- against movements such as feminism, multiculturalism
and environmentalism as well as claims for homosexual and indigenous
rights.
For the first seventy years of Federation the non-Labor
side of politics was dominated by moderate protectionism, which pursued
an economic agenda of progressive or welfare liberalism and conservative
social policies. The governments of S. M. Bruce through the 1920s and
R. G. Menzies in the 1950s and 1960s established welfare liberalism and
social conservatism as an orthodoxy for non-Labor politics. Bruce and
Menzies opposed vigorously the perceived threats of collectivism posed
by communist activity in the trade union movement and Labor policies of
nationalisation. They supported the decentralisation of political power
at home and the maintenance of the British Empire abroad.
On two occasions conservative elements on the non-Labor
side of politics have been fuelled by major defections from the ALP. The
first of these was the schism caused by the departure of W. M. Hughes'
National Labor from the ALP and subsequent merger with the Liberal Party
to form the pro-conscription Nationalist Party in 1917. The Nationalist
Party stood for solidarity within Empire and nation, and portrayed the
ALP as a party of sectional interests that sought to isolate Australia
from the Empire and divide the nation into classes.
The second occasion was the defection of an anti-communist
and predominantly Catholic element from the ALP in 1955 to form what later
became the Democratic Labor Party (DLP). The DLP was primarily motivated
by what it saw as the increasing threat of communism, both abroad and
within the labour movement at home. The DLP was not solely anti-ALP. It
also expressed suspicion at the centralisation of power that accompanied
monopolistic capitalism. The 1971 manifesto of The National Civic Council,
an organisation informally associated with the DLP, proposed a program
of what might be called 'agrarian conservatism', which linked life on
the land with moral fibre and wholesome relationships.
Agrarian conservatism has also been a theme underlying the
policies of the Country and National Parties. These policies have sought
to encourage population movement from urban to rural areas, through the
relocation of industry and upgrading of infrastructure.
From the 1980s free-market liberalism supplanted moderate
protectionism as the economic orthodoxy on the conservative side of politics.
Supporters of free-markets championed economic freedom but many resiled
from social libertarianism. They were concerned to maintain existing institutions
and sought to defend moral standards through censorship of pornography
and the adoption of law and order policies in response to crime in general,
and the use of illegal substances in particular.
Conservatives and the Republic
'Conservative' is an elastic term that has been used to
describe beliefs ranging from agrarianism, empire, racism and nationalism
to free-market liberalism. The elasticity of the term can be shown with
reference to the debate concerning the constitutional and political character
of Australia. In the decades after Federation, conservatives stood for
Empire, while Labor tended to argue for national self-sufficiency, particularly
in the field of military capability. After World War Two and the dissolution
of the Empire, conservatives stood for maintaining British constitutional
links such as the authority of the monarch and the Privy Council. However,
in recent debates on whether Australia ought to become a republic, some
participants on both sides have identified themselves as conservative.
What allows Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy and
Conservatives for a Republic both to claim to be conservative is their
common disposition to maintain the relevance of responsible government.
The disagreement between these groups is not over which set of abstract
principles ought to be applied in assessing the value of responsible government,
whether freedom, equality, the will of the people or efficiency. Rather
the debate turns on how little change, if any, is required to maintain
the relevance of the Australian political system to those it governs.
Is constitutional monarchy the most certain way of preserving responsible
government? Or, ought a so-called 'minimalist' republic be instituted
as better representing the changing loyalties, aspirations and ethnic
character of the population, while maintaining Westminster traditions?
Conservatives may not agree about the most certain way of
protecting responsible government, but they agree in arguing that a directly
elected head of state has the potential to compromise these traditions.
Two Faces of Conservatism
Conservatives have been portrayed as backward looking people
who are fearful of an uncertain future, and unwilling to share their present
advantages with those worse off. However, conservatives have responded
to such criticisms by pointing out that the preservation of what is presently
enjoyed does not necessarily entail the exclusion of others. A corollary
of national pride is ensuring that the benefits of what one enjoys are
extended to others, rather than denied them.
There will always be debate concerning the direction in
which Australian society ought to proceed. Conservatism does not come
to these debates with a prepared blueprint, but neither does it come empty
handed. Conservatism looks to the current resources enjoyed by this society,
to prevailing beliefs and practices and extant institutions. It does not
seek to impose change upon society but to alter institutions to keep them
recognisable and relevant to those whom they govern.
Conservatives argue that the dreaming up of new directions
in which a society might travel is unnecessary. Moral beliefs and practices
are always changing. They also view attempts to arrest all change as being
as futile as sound innovation will always be necessary to ensure the ongoing
good health of society. Conservatives seek to accommodate change as the
only sure way of preserving a distinctly Australian way of life.
- This Research Note summarises a large body of literature
on conservatism. See, for example, T. Ball and R. Dagger, Political
Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, HarperCollins, New York, 1995;
C. Hazelhurst, ed, Australian Conservatism, ANU Press, Canberra,
1979.
|
