Edmund Burk lost in localism

P.P. McGuinness makes sense about the rise of nimbyism in our electorates and laments the departure from Edmund Burke's approach to government and representation.

"a modern version of one of the oldest dilemmas of democratic politics: whether the elected member is to act in the manner Edmund Burke insisted on, as true representative of the electors and acting in accordance with his own judgment of their, and the national, interest; or whether to be simply a mindless delegate whose job is to vote according to their instructions and self-perceived interests without exercising independent judgment."


P. P. McGuinness: The Australian
The rise of localism

The parish-pump politician who kicked Baywatch off a local beach represents a growing trend: the triumph of nimbyism, the not in my backyard syndrome

CONVENTIONAL wisdom in the press describes electoral outcomes such as the result in last Saturday's by-election in the NSW seat of Pittwater in Sydney as a punishment of the political party that normally holds it. In this case, however, the result indicates a far more profound shift in our voting patterns. It is the triumph of localism and parish-pump politics over the wider concerns of federal or state politics.This has been an emerging and increasingly serious trend in the motivations of voters during recent years. It is not just that electorates are tending to vote more and more for independents on account of their personal qualities and popularity. Even though these attributes may be useful, far more important for a growing section of the electorate is that a local representative should be seen to be placing themselves at the direct service of their electorate and locality, placing its interests and concerns above those of the wider polity and community.
That is, the trend represents the triumph of nimbyism, the not in my back yard syndrome. For it is not just a matter of advancing one's own local interests but of defending them to the exclusion of the interests of the wider community, or simply narrow-minded selfishness.
Thus, while the filming of episodes of Baywatch on Avalon beach hardly represents a great contribution to the welfare of the nation (although considerations of overseas tourism should not be forgotten), the opposition to this led by Alex McTaggart, the newly elected member for Pittwater, was what kicked off his political trajectory. This was a purely selfish response: it's our beach and how dare anyone who doesn't live around here get any benefit from it or interfere in any way with our enjoyment of it.
This is only a particular example of the nonsense that goes on all the time in local government politics when roads are closed or narrowed to close off "rat runs", a derogatory term for the use of minor roads as alternative links between trunk roads. The residents are claiming that the roads belong to them and no one else.
The same is true of insistence that development of multiple dwellings in spaces hitherto occupied by single-family houses ought to be prevented: "there are enough people here already".
An aspect of this is the intention also to preserve the use of local roads for existing residents only. The standard complaint about any new development is that it will create traffic and parking problems for those who got there first.
It is but one form of the phenomenon noted years ago by John Paterson, an outstanding analyst of the economics of urban planning. He pointed out that the steady rise in required standards of housing was one of the chief means by which the relatively rich excluded lower income groups from "their" suburbs.
Far from being embarrassed by such manifestations of selfishness, they are asserted more and more vociferously, with a resulting pressure on the standards of political life and representation to fall. If an important qualification for being a lower house parliamentarian is to have lived in a particular electorate and been involved in its local affairs for years, then the opportunities for highly qualified and able people to find a place will be greatly limited. Yet one of the reasons most often given by those normally Liberal voters who this time voted for McTaggart was that the Liberal candidate was not a local; indeed, he was barely known in the electorate.
It may be considered that such a preference at least limits the power of the party machines; we saw what happened in the NSW south coast electorate of Cunningham in 2002 when an unpopular head office candidate of no distinction was parachuted in to contest a by-election for Labor. An unknown local Green was elected.
There was considerable local discontent at the parachuting of Peter Garrett into the Sydney federal electorate of Kingsford Smith last year, which was muffled by the context of an imminent election with a new, apparently promising, Labor leader.
It is usually at by-elections that discontent with the established parties is manifested by the election of independent locals, often to be reversed at a general election. But the growing number of local heroes serving as independents even after a general election shows that a more fundamental force is operating. The supra-local parties are being challenged by the local activists and interest groups.
This partly accounts for the growing influence of the Greens in the inner-city electorates. While some of their vote comes from ideologically committed supporters, more of it is local support as a result of their unhesitant embracing of all the local nimby causes. The Greens, like other nimbies, are purely cynical in their campaigning regardless of merit on local issues. And many nominal Labor supporters in these areas are far more interested in local concerns, such as traffic, parking, parks, dog facilities and suchlike than in any traditional left-wing causes.
In effect, the voters everywhere are becoming more and more like the traditional supporters of the Nationals. Country Party politics - that is, the politics of cynical self-advantage, of pork-barrelling and local advantage at the expense of the national interest - is becoming a more general model. This kind of thing is typified by the behaviour of senator Barnaby "Bjelke-Petersen" Joyce, who quite shamelessly declares that he answers only to his own voters, in his own state, and is prepared to sell his vote for the highest return to them he can extract. Many of the local heroes regard him with envy because of his strategic position.
This is a modern version of one of the oldest dilemmas of democratic politics: whether the elected member is to act in the manner Edmund Burke insisted on, as true representative of the electors and acting in accordance with his own judgment of their, and the national, interest; or whether to be simply a mindless delegate whose job is to vote according to their instructions and self-perceived interests without exercising independent judgment.
Increasingly the demand today is that the member should be a combination of welfare worker, lobbyist, ombudsman and friend and servant to local interests.
Ability and knowledge of the world, or any special expertise, are discounted more and more. No longer can we imagine a Bert Evatt or a Garfield Barwick, coming from the highest levels of the law, stepping into parliament and serving their country. They would not, these days, find a local seat. All the places are reserved for local heroes or party hacks imposed on the locals or cluttering up the Senate benches. Even the occasional, unusual, parachuted drop-in, such as Garrett, is recruited not because of any apparent ability but in the hope of garnering more votes from the ignorant or winning back a few Green votes.
The reality is that the Pittwater result has little to do with Liberal factionalism (much exaggerated in the media). It has a lot to do with the victory of nimbyism over serious policy considerations and good government.
P. P. McGuinness is the editor of Quadrant magazine.