Triumphs of the Elites

Author: Dr Martin Leet

Date: 01 September 2009

Developed societies have always been characterised by hierarchies and class, by divisions between “ordinary folk” and “elites”. In political rhetoric, these divisions are useful for advocating a position. It is popular to celebrate the values and capabilities of ordinary citizens against the privileges and condescension of elites. But, as Martin Leet suggests in this article, these rhetorical strategies sometimes obscure more than illuminate.

Former Prime Minister, John Howard, re-entered public debate recently as he presented the 2009 Menzies lecture. His speech focused upon something to which he has long been opposed, a bill of rights. Among other things, he said that the implementation of a bill of rights in Australia would “represent the final triumph of elitism in Australian politics”.

Howard argued that a bill of rights would transfer too much power to the judiciary and that the proper balance of individual rights and responsibilities was best achieved by parliament. Addressing parliamentarians themselves, he said “You were elected to make decisions, and you should not shirk that decision-making responsibility by transferring it to others”. He referred to parliamentarians as “typical citizens” who are elected by “ordinary Australians”. It is these “typical” and “ordinary” people, in Howard’s view, who should be resolving the major issues of moral and public significance, not a group of elites, judicial or otherwise.

Howard’s position on the proposal for a bill of rights, currently being considered in a report to the federal Labor Government […], is a view shared by many people around the nation. These people are distributed throughout the political spectrum, with ideological position having little predictive value in regard to one’s views about the desirability of a bill of rights. But it is interesting to note that Howard has couched his argument in the broader and well-rehearsed story about elitism in Australian politics and culture.

During his term in government, Howard regularly objected to the “black armband” view of history, which he believed was promulgated by a left-wing intellectual elite intent on making the present generation feel guilty about the nation’s past. He refused to apologise to the stolen generations for this reason. He was concerned about the political correctness of multiculturalism, arguing that we had become too obsessed with diversity and with respecting the rights of minorities, rather than affirming a proud national identity and shared history.

In a 2006 speech, in which Howard called for a change to the way history was taught in schools, he expressed the view that he had gone some way in correcting the excesses of the Keating era: “We’ve drawn back from being too obsessed with diversity to a point where Australians are now better able to appreciate the enduring values of the national character that we proudly celebrate and preserve”. But judging by his most recent speech, it seems Howard still feels that he is fighting a losing battle, worried as he is at the prospect of a “final triumph of elitism in Australian politics”.

In my view, Howard presents many powerful and convincing reasons in his speech about why we should steer clear of a bill of rights in Australia. But I think it is unfortunate that he continues to couch his arguments in terms of an enduring struggle against the left. It obscures rather than illuminates the debate, particularly since issues such as these can no longer be easily understood in terms of the division between left and right.

It is also misleading to link, as Howard does, the division between left and right with that between an elite and ordinary people. It is a very useful rhetorical strategy but has a tenuous relationship with the reality of things. There are elites on both sides of the political divide; so too ordinary people.

An area where the contrast between “ordinary” and “elite” perhaps has more purchase is in the economic domain. The global financial crisis has exposed quite clearly a structural division between, on the one hand, a financial elite, which lives off speculation in and about the market and, on the other hand, a mass of ordinary folk who participate in the day-to-day production of actual goods and services.

Jim Stanford, a Canadian economist and author of Economics for Everyone, argues that the realities of contemporary economic life are mystified and obscured by a legion of economists and financial analysts who comment hourly on the latest market trends. Using complex jargon, mathematical modelling and endless data, these commentators make the system appear a natural, yet unfathomable, part of our lives. It is hard to say just how many people really listen to and understand the financial reports presented at least hourly in the media; but they are there and presumably they are important.

Stanford says it is actually all very simple. If you want to know about the economy, you simply need to talk to the “ordinary folk” who get up out of bed every day and go to work. These people are both the means and the end of the “real” economy. They produce goods and services in order to earn money, pay the bills and build a life. In the end, it is much like what the rest of the animal kingdom is doing, day in, day out.

Looming over the real economy, and currently casting a rather large shadow upon it, is the “paper economy”. It is quite possible to thrive in this domain without producing a single good or service, says Stanford. In an ideal world, in his view, the financial sector supports the investments required by the real economy. But after at least three decades of deregulation and glorification, finance has become an end in itself, disconnected from useful products and services.

This disconnection between a “financial elite” and “ordinary citizens” lies behind the current crisis. But despite calls for regulation and reform, to make the financial sector more accountable and responsible, it seems as though things might not change too much. The pattern of expressing outrage and following it up with forgetfulness has been a feature of financial crises in the past. And, this time too, the signs are there. As Stanford notes, we are hearing a bit of optimism about a rebounding financial system and that things are on the rise. But this resurgence is happening while trends in the real economy continue to point persistently downward. The disconnection persists.

Dr Martin Leet is Senior Research Officer with the Brisbane Institute. He studied political science at the University of Queensland and was awarded a BA (Hons) and PhD. Over the last ten years, he has taught and researched in the fields of political economy, public policy and political theory. Martin has published two books, as well as numerous journal articles and book reviews. His most recent book, Aftereffects of Knowledge in Modernity (State University of New York Press), examines the ambivalent cultural consequences of the search for knowledge in the modern western world.