It’s an interesting time to be an Australian. I’m not sure I’d call it exciting (as Prime Minister Turnbull might prefer), but you’d have to be pretty churlish not to call it interesting. The Great Salt Lake of Australian democracy is flooding. There’s froth and chop on the water.
That was a close election, and you’d have to be quite the optimist to think that our Government is going to run any more smoothly post a double-dissolution election. Personally, I’m neither here nor there on this particular point. The Government of the day has the right to try and govern as it sees fit; I’m just not sure things have changed in any meaningful way; at least, not in how the government is actually going to function. (And let’s hope, in the name of stability, that function it does.)
Bill Shorten has done well. The ALP is a restored brand. Personally, I’m of the belief that the better our politicians and their parties, the better our government across the board. So, well done, Bill.
But the real story (for many) of this election has been the return of Pauline Hanson. Many are happy about this; and many are not. If you’re like me, you remember what it was like the last time she was here, you’re probably more likely to be in the latter camp. I think it’s important to question why she’s returned, what she means (or symbolises) and what’s really happening with regards to race and racial issues in Australia.
For a start, these are seriously complicated questions, and they cannot all be meaningfully addressed in what ultimately isn’t going to be that lengthy a piece of writing. But I still want to write about them, in order to help me clarify my own understanding and to (in some small way) contribute what should be a serious, respectful dialogue about who we are.
So, let’s look at why she’s returned. Well, the simple answer to that is because a sufficient number of people wanted her to. For many, she articulates what they understand to be true; namely, that Australia is in danger of losing itself in the face of threats from abroad that are driven by the extremist behaviour of certain peoples. Now, I don’t think this is true, but it is important to acknowledge that some do. There is no point pretending that views that differ from – or worse are incompatible with – our own will simply evaporate of their own accord. History teaches us that this is unlikely.
It’s easy enough, I think, to recognise that the anti-Islam and anti-Immigration views promulgated by Hanson are simply the by-product of the kind of fear and ignorance that has been stoked by particular sections in our society driven by the bewildering desire to magnify these all-too-human failings. Many people in Australia - as is the case all over the world – are afraid of those things they do not understand. Perhaps it shouldn’t be hard for people to realise that in reality, there isn’t much (if any) of a connection between the overwhelmingly peaceful global population of Muslims (over one billion) and the extremely small number who commit atrocities that purport to be in the name of Allah, but in fact are the antithesis of everything that genuine Muslim people believe. (I mean, the Danish sociopath, Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 fellow Danes in 2011 was, if only on paper, a Christian.)
Why are truths that appear self-evident to many so elusive to some? Probably because the attainment of these understanding isn’t quite as intuitive as many might think. For a start, a great deal of what constitutes progressive and/or inclusive thinking requires a great deal of diverse reinforcement in its formative stages.