Our leaders have a responsibility to uphold standards

The name-calling and personal attacks so readily used by Australian politicians—such as Mark Latham's derogatory remarks about the Prime Minister demonstrated this week—show a complete lack of civility.

Civility may be dismissed by some as an old-fashioned concept that has never really been present in politics anyway but, although civility may seem foreign to politics, it is, in fact, central to democracy.

Political theorist John Rawls argues that political legitimacy is dependent on the limits of public reason. He explains: 'The ideal of citizenship imposes a moral, not a legal, duty—the duty of civility—to be able to explain to one another how the principles and policies they advocate and vote for.' Moreover, civility requires a 'willingness to listen to others and a fair-mindedness'.

In other words, civility is key because it enables dialogue through civil exchange of opposing views.

Certainly, it is clear to any observer that the main political parties in Australia most definitely have differing views. But what is also present, which undermines the ability for dialogue as described by Rawls, is the contempt held by many of our elected representatives for views other than their own. After all, Latham's contemptuous remark that John Howard is 'an arse-licker' is but the latest slur in a long list of mudslinging carried out by all parties. This contempt is at the heart of the incivility present in the political arena.

So why is civility important for the functioning of society? And what does it matter if incivilities are becoming pervasive in certain aspects of our lives?

What seems clear is that civility has a definite role to play. Liberal democracies are based on the concept of individual freedoms. These freedoms, however, come at the cost of civic responsibility. In 1791, Edmund Burke argued that 'men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites'.

This is the precise role of civility. Civility often requires us to sacrifice our interests or desires for the sake of our interactions with others. Without some sacrifice for the sake of society, a constant state of conflict created by inherently competing liberties will prevent society from functioning at all.

Consequently, when members of the community fail to act with some level of civility, calls for government controls of behaviour increase. For example, at the beginning of the month, the Victorian Government announced the introduction of a standard code of practice for sporting associations to crack down on 'ugly parent syndrome'— the growing problem of parents abusing umpires and players at junior sporting events.

When government has to become involved in regulating behaviour that would otherwise be done by the norms of society, the cost is the loss of liberty. The failure of some to make sacrifices in the name of civility restricts the freedom of us all.

This is why we have come to see incivility as the intentional disregard for others. And it is clear when you look at the antics of our political elite that much of the behaviour is done with such disregard.

Statements and accusations are made with the full awareness that, at the very least, the target will find them offensive, let alone a large proportion of the public.

Maybe as a society we have let much of this behaviour slide—talked about it for a few days after the event but then forgotten it – because we see politicians as a breed unto themselves. Or maybe we see that how they interact in parliament has little to do with our day-to-day lives.

Whatever the reason, it is time that we started insisting on civility among our law-makers. These people are elected to lead our country and we should insist that this includes leading by example.

For what better message to send to society than that the road back to civility begins in Canberra?

 

To Top

About the Author:
Nicole Billante is a research assistant at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney.