Today’s Turning Point: Partisanship, Democracy and the Lessons of History

Andrew Lim, Year 11

Today ’s Turning Point: Partis anship, Democracy and the Lessons of History

History is oft seen as an unchanging record – a list of events long since past, of battles fought in dusty tomes to protect ideals etched in unchanging stone. But such turning points in history, far from being the inanimate retellings of times long gone, are the very challenges that face the modern world today. The legacy left behind from today’s decisions – the story told of here and now – will become the decried or praised history of tomorrow.

The world stands on the cusp of change – between a society of division, partisanship and authoritarianism and one of unity and democracy. But analysis of previous turning points in history may show a path forward for the many turning points of today.

It is necessary to consider the pressing issue of partisanship. In today’s modern political context, democracies across the globe are being pushed to extreme views. According to the Australian Election Study (AES), between 1996 and 2016, the percentage of Australian politicians declaring themselves to be moderate went from almost 40% to 10% 1 . A similar shift can be seen throughout the electorate, with self-described centrist voters decreasing by 12% over the same period. 2 Support for political fringe and single-issue parties is at a record high, with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, Nick Xenophon and others commanding an increasing share of political power. While some declared the 2018 South Australian election to be showing a change in this movement, the minor party lower house primary votes remained at a record-high number. It is increasingly clear that Australia is moving further and further to opposite ends of the political spectrum. But it is not limited to Australia. In Britain, the traditionally centre-left Liberal Democrats, who have maintained a key place in the centre of British politics since the 1800s and once were strong enough to form government, have lost much of their power, reduced to a mere 11 seats in the House of Commons. 3 In the United States, meanwhile, a sitting president divides even the judiciary, traditionally above party politics, into ‘Obama judges’ and ‘Trump judges’, attacking the very foundations of a rule-of-law based democracy. 4

But there is a parallel in contemporary history for such hyper-partisanship. In the late 1700s, as the American Revolution took hold, professing radical ideas like fundamental human rights and autarchy, the world found itself at a turning point – between democracy and autocracy. The political landscape within democratic America itself was torn apart by partisan infighting. Two major parties were formed – the Federalists, standing for strong centralised government control; and the Democratic-Republicans, standing for individual liberties and freedoms. The atmosphere was akin to today’s politics. Both parties used fearmongering and personal attacks, helped by a polarised media – the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, scaring the public by depicting

Harry Newman - Year 7

1 Harris, L., & Charlton, A. (2018, April 2). The fundamental operating model of Australian politics is breaking down. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-fundamental-operating-model-of-australian-politics-is-breaking-down-20180322-p4z5o9.html 2 ibid. 3 Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2019). Current State of the Parties. Retrieved from UK Parliament: https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/ current-state-of-the-parties/ 4 Durkin, E. (2018, November 22). John Roberts chastises Trump for criticising judge who blocked asylum order. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/21/john-roberts-chief-justice-trump-obama-judge

Alex Ingpen - Year 7

the Republicans as ruthless heralds of a reign of terror and public disorder; while the Republicans decried opponents like President John Adams as ‘crippled and toothless’ 5 through their newspapers. When General George Washington denounced such polarised politics in his Farewell Address of 1796, the Democratic-Republican Aurora newspaper declared Washington’s Farewell Address to be the ‘loathings of a sick mind’. 6 In some cases, this could even become violent, with Aaron Burr shooting and killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel over Hamilton’s alleged declaration that Burr was ‘dangerous…[and] ought not to be trusted with the reins of government.’ 7

Despite such a polarised political arena, however, many of the key figures stood, at least publicly, against hyperpartisanship, warning against its many dangers. Indeed, in the Farewell Address, Washington declared that ‘the spirit of party…kindles the animosity of one part against another [and] forments [sic] occasionally riot and insurrection’, denouncing it as a ‘frightful despotism’ 8 . The bitterly divisive election of 1800 was filled with both partisan bickering between major parties and intra-party politics within Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. Yet in his inaugural address as president in 1801, Jefferson declared that ‘we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists’ 9 This illustrates a principle missing from modern politics: despite the mud-slinging, insult-based, partisan atmosphere of the time, those in it ascribed to a higher ideal. They believed, at least in their rhetoric, in a society free from partisan fighting, understanding the inherent failure of a system rife with it. Today, such vision is sorely lacking in our leadership – and historical example seems to illustrate its paramount importance to the resolution of such partisan fighting.

But what is so fundamentally wrong with partisanship and a polarised political landscape? After all, some would posit that such a divided society may even be part of a healthy political system, allowing for simple and easy choices at the ballot box.

However, the consequences of such a society can be severe. A divided society provides a perfect breeding ground for autocracy and the destruction of a democratic, free society. Returning to the 1700s, this was acknowledged by Washington in his Farewell Address, when he stated that party tensions ‘incline…men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual’ 10 . Take, as another example of a turning point, the aftermath of the French Revolution. Following a period of unstable democracy, as France suffered through the Reign of Terror and its bloodshed and violence, the French people took respite in the military coup d’état of Napoleon Bonaparte. Indeed, the revolutionary general Marquis de Lafayette declared, in a letter to then-US-Secretary-of-State James Madison, that ‘there is in France Such [sic] a disgust of freedom’ 11 . That is, when party tensions become too volatile and uncontrollable, the public tends towards a stable sort of authoritarian leadership. In 2018, an ANU study revealed that 33% of Australians considered a ‘strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections’ as a ‘very good’ or ‘fairly good’ idea. 12 In America, a 2017 study found that 29% of

5 Heineman, B. W. (2011, September 9). The Origins of Today’s Bitter Partisanship: The Founding Fathers. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic. com/national/archive/2011/09/the-origins-of-todays-bitter-partisanship-the-founding-fathers/244839/ 6 ibid 7 The National Archives and Records Administration. (2019, January 18). Enclosure: Charles D. Cooper to Philip Schuyler, [23 April 1804]. Retrieved from Founders Online: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0203-0002 [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 26, 1 May 1802–23 October 1804, Additional Documents 1774–1799, Addenda and Errata, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979, pp. 243–246.] 8 Lillian Goldman Law Library. (2008). Washington’s Farewell Address 1796. Retrieved from The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp 9 Lillian Goldman Law Library. (2008). Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address. Retrieved from The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp 10 Lilian Goldman Law Library, 2008, Washington’s Farewell Address 1796 11 The National Archives and Records Administration. (2019, January 18). To James Madison from Lafayette, 1 December 1802. Retrieved from Founders Online: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/02-04-02-0176 [Original source: The Papers of James Madison, Secretary of State Series, vol. 4, 8 October 1802–15 May 1803, ed. Mary A. Hackett, J. C. A. Stagg, Jeanne Kerr Cross, Susan Holbrook Perdue, and Ellen J. Barber. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998, pp. 166–170.] 12 Hutchens, G. (2018, October 17). A third of Australians in favour of authoritarian or ‘strongman’ leader, study finds. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.

respondents showed some support for a ‘strong leader’ (sans Congress and elections) or ‘army rule’. 13 These again seem to illustrate the worrying tendency for society to slip into autocracy and dictatorship in the presence of party politics.

It would be remiss to ignore also the effects of other kinds of sectarianism, which often tie into partisanship. Here a further historical parallel can be drawn. In the 1960s, at the height of the civil rights movement, two alternative approaches were taken to the appalling treatment of African-Americans across America. One method, spearheaded by Malcolm X, saw white America as the epitome of evil, espousing and teaching to his followers, famously, that ‘the white man is the devil’. 14 In stark contrast, Dr Martin Luther King Jr recognised that simply spreading hatred of ‘the other’ would not produce pragmatic results. During the March on Washington, he acknowledged ‘we cannot walk alone’, declaring a dream that the nation might become ‘a beautiful symphony of brotherhood’. 15 However, of the two, Martin Luther King Jr, unlike Malcolm X, was able to secure considerable progress in America, directly leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1968. This all illustrates the importance of a bipartisan approach, even in a deeply divided society: that sectarianism – whether it be along party lines, whether it be along racial lines, whether it be along religious lines – can be combatted effectively through an approach of tolerance and bipartisanship.

Thus, historical example seems to consistently show that the turning point of today’s democracy is far from unique. It demonstrates that a deeply divided society can lead to a quick slide away from democracy and into autocracy. It also showcases that a vision beyond partisan bickering, as well as an approach of tolerance to all opponents, no matter their backgrounds, are needed to combat polarisation and factionalism.

And so, we must ask ourselves: what kind of society are we? Is this the sort of society where hyper-partisanship and ideological posturing reign supreme over pragmatism? Is this the sort of society where tyrants can take root and grow? The great radical experiments of democracy and freedom are not over yet, nor will they ever be. The cycle of history repeats itself from time to time – there have been tyrants, partisans and ideologues before, and there will be many more to come. But now, at this turning point in history, the question lies ahead as it has before: Can today’s world forge itself stronger amidst the flames of hatred and sectarianism? Or will it simply melt away before an apathetic society?

The answer is still to be written.

James Rallis - Year 8

Max Buckley - Year 12

theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/17/a-third-of-australians-in-favour-of-authoritarian-or-strongman-leader-study-finds 13 Drutman, L., Diamond, L., & Goldman, J. (2018). Follow the Leader: Exploring American Support for Democracy and Authoritarianism. Washington, D.C.: Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. 14 Lusher, A. (2016, June 5). ‘The white man is the devil’– what the Nation of Islam taught Muhammad Ali. Retrieved from The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/muhammad-ali-nation-of-islam-michael-parkinson-interview-who-were-elijah-muhammad-a7066301.html 15 King, M. L. (1963, August 28). ‘I Have a Dream,’ Address Delivered at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, United States of America. Retrieved from Stanford University | The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/ king-papers/documents/i-have-dream-address-delivered-march-washington-jobs-and-freedom