Caution: The following account assumes familiarity with
Queensland's history and is unlikely to be of interest to persons who lack
such a background.
Overview
Following the 2004 state election in Queensland, a senior political commentator suggested
that with '"With three wins
under his belt and the conservative parties in no real position to win in 2007
- baring a miracle, scandal or Act of God - Peter Beattie is the latest in a
long list of authoritarian premiers" [1]
However this conclusion is likely to be wrong because:
this change has made the life of 'ignorant authoritarians'
more difficult; and
public administration is now in very serious
difficulties as a result of pursuing populist policies, and
authoritarianism is not a viable way of solving them.
There is little doubt of the success of 'ignorant authoritarians' in
Queensland's political history - and
that perceptions of Queensland
politicians have often been poor as a result.
However the Queensland environment will no longer allow 'ignorant authoritarians' to
prosper given:
the loss of provincial isolation - due to
interstate migration which has raised community awareness and expectations;
exposure to Asian dynamism, and probable impact of a US free trade agreement;
the slow shift since the mid 1980s from resource-based to more knowledge-based economic activities;
the emergence of policy research competencies (and a questioning of
authoritarian 'don't you worry about that' claims) in an increasing number of
organizations.
they relied on a fairly competent Public Service, and had an obsession with building up
financial assets rather than with public spending;
they were able to demonstrate economic 'success' by acting as a local
'puppeteer' for external investors in the state's rich natural resources.
In the early 1990s
the Goss Government got away with the 'authoritarian' game (but only
for a short time) because:
a gallery of inexperienced academics said how good its policy was - and
Queenslanders still had no institutional capacity to question anything they
were told;
everyone in the Public Service who could prove that the academics and
political advisers often didn't know
what they were talking about was sacked (see Towards Good Government in Queensland); but eventually
The
Borbidge Government didn't get away with the 'authoritarian' game at
all. In fact it hardly even bothered being authoritarian.
Beattie's Governments have gotten away with the 'authoritarian' game,
because:
rhetoric was expressed about supporting a 'Smart State' agenda;
Queenslanders still had little institutional ability to question anything they
were told - and the Public Service remained politically compliant;
a higher rate of public spending has been maintained - apparently financed
in part by 'creative accounting';
apologies have been proffered whenever the 'wheels have fallen off'
public functions to eliminate the perception of political arrogance.
Practical circumstances no longer favour Populist
Authoritarianism
However, though Queensland's Government faces
no serious political
Opposition, it has immense administrative and financial problems to which
authoritarianism is not a real solution. Indicators of this are in:
the
dysfunctions identified in The Growing Case for a Professional Public
Service;
Moreover despite a convincing electoral victory, the Government lacks policies
that would withstand
serious examination in many areas (see
dysfunctions).
Having an administrative mess, a major financing problem and an often bad
understanding of how to fix those problems is not a happy position to be in.
While profuse apologies may ensure that a political leader is not seen to be arrogant,
they can not make government administration any more competent.
In spite of this, such practical problems
can be virtually invisible to political commentators and to the electorate
because of severe institutional weakness in Queensland.
Show: why
Immediately prior to the 2004 election an experienced political observer argued
that there were 'No clouds on
Sunshine Pete's horizon' - because protest votes were now a thing of the
past in Queensland.
However while his observation was correct from an electoral viewpoint, once the election
was past, dark clouds would have to gather because of the problems
identified above.
Practical 'clouds' may not translate into political 'clouds' because
Queensland's political system operates in an unrealistic world. There is a general lack of input from independent institutions which are
both competent and applied who could help the community understand (a) 'big
picture' issues and (b) whether policy is likely to be effective and being
competently implemented. This is why
Queensland has had a
Weak Parliament. It reflects comprehensive failure by: business;
associations; unions; and universities, which prevents Queensland from
developing much more astute political leadership than a flock of sheep.
Political commentators do not seem to recognize the 'competence' dimension in
making a government susceptible to a protest vote. For example, the Goss Government was not susceptible to a 'protest' vote because
people were unhappy with the Federal Government [1] - but because its administration was
incompetent in many ways which impacted on them (see The Origin and Spread of
the Queensland Effect). Moreover a very significant side of the 1995 protest vote
was the electoral influence of
the Public Service and (even though their situation remains very bad) the
Public Service was
unlikely to bother protesting in 2004.
However government is not just about
illusion - so Queensland's populist Government (and the
electorate) seem unlikely to enjoy its third term unless authoritarian populism
is moderated by professional
realism.
Thus the authoritarianism that political commentators see as normal in
Queensland may no longer be
in the interests of Queensland's political establishment.
Show: another example of authoritarian expectations
Another example of authoritarian expectations: Following the 2004
election an experienced political commentator claimed that Commerce Queensland
might be 'sent to Coventry' by the State Government for its vocal criticism of
government practices and of a senior minister during the election campaign [1].
However the authoritarian tactic of simply 'shooting messengers' who point out
problems is no longer going to work. For example, in the case mentioned above:
'shooting the messenger' is not a viable way to defend 'creative
accounting'. Commerce Queensland's major concern seemed to be about 'fudging'
of figures to balance Queensland's budget [1].
And unfortunately their claims about this seem to have been an understatement
rather than partisan politics (see
Enron-itis; and About the 2003-04 Budget).
Commerce Queensland's broader criticism of state policy appeared
to be well supported by a comprehensive and professional evaluation of relevant
issues (see
Smart Business: Smart Queensland). The latter analysis, though it reflected
a 'liberal market' viewpoint somewhat different to the Government's,
none-the-less linked credible public policy principles with practical business
concerns. Though this research base had limitations, it was vastly more solid
than Commerce Queensland (and most equivalent organizations) have traditionally
produced. Thus Commerce Queensland's assertions during the state election
campaign were not necessarily mere 'shameless political partisanship' as had
been claimed [1]. Once
again their argument seemed deficient because it did not go anywhere near far
enough - as many state economic programs are simply NOT a competent way of
achieving their desired practical outcomes (eg consider Commentary on Smart State).
Presumably the State Government is itself now only too aware of the
practical (public service and financial) problems mentioned above and that it
cannot solve them by the authoritarian tactic of 'shooting messengers'.
Thus it is inappropriate to suggest that the Government might be merely
vindictive, and that organizations such as Commerce Queensland should not have
the 'guts' to question dubious policies and practices that emerge from
Queensland's quirky political system.