Ousting Prime Ministers: Is Australia's 'Coup Culture' Endangering Democracy?

Introduction

The Australian culture of ousting its sitting Prime Ministers can only be explained as holding potential danger to her democracy (Grattan 2018). The politicians who are undertaking that 'coup culture' are seen to disregard the democratic rights of the voters by treating them to their ousting actions. Several commentators have advocated for a four-year federal term in the last two decades. That advocacy is based on encouraging improved policy-making to bring to an end the increasing coup culture witnessed in the Australian democracy. That is because prime ministers cannot be counted to last in their office for more than three years after they get elected in office. For instance, the coup culture is evidenced in less than ten years ago, when four sitting Prime Ministers have been sacked by their party officials. Internal party politics played an integral role in ousting of the Prime Ministers from office. At the Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull was ousted by his treasurer Scott Morrison, as a result of unexpected leadership vote some days before the coup.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

That includes in the year 2010 ousting of Rudd to Gillard, after that, in the year 2013 sacking of Gillard to reintroduce Rudd, then Abbott to Turnbull in the year 2015, and lastly Turnbull to Morrison in the year 2018. The sacking of the sitting Prime Ministers has been associated with political differences and interests. The reinstating of Rudd in the year 2013 was considered a corrective measure to save the nation's democracy. In the year 2015, when the government under the leadership of Abbott appeared oblivious, triggered the installment of Turnbull to save the situation as a better prospect (Miller 2016, p.485). That achieved through the election in 2016, closely won. The ousting of Rudd to introduce Gillard was as a result of frustrations and increased panic amongst his associates, because of the style of governance. Additional ill-informed coup likely to threaten the democracy of Australia is by the unsuccessful assault facilitated by Peter Dutton worked to elevate Morrison into power, as revenge against Turnbull. These actions have devastating consequences as explained below.

The Impact of the Coup Culture

Some of the renowned coups witnessed around the world are seen to have justification. However, the resulting impact when identified and evaluated have repercussions to the political system of a country as it is set. Justifying the coup culture in Australia can be pointed back in the year 1991 when Bob Hawke was ousted by Paul Keating; however, in those days coup was not the culture. The coup culture as witnessed in Australia today has evoked a different reaction from around the world terming the nation as the "coup capital." The rolling and ever-changing prime ministership is sending wrong gesture around the world, such as the leadership in Australia is uncertain, and that may eventually affect investment into the nation (Croissant 2013, p.266). The culture of ousting leaders in Australia is contrary to the decision-making by the leadership requiring strong stands with regards to policy formulation. Moreover, timeframes are considered shortened when the successive government has been casting programs over the last ten years, due to the continuous sacking of the sitting Prime Ministers.

The leadership in Australia is disadvantaged when it comes to future thinking when there is continued polling to fill in the left Prime Minister positions. The various troops backing the subsequent Prime Ministers have not guaranteed their leadership positions due to the lack of tough patches, in addition to rising against any insurgencies focused on them. Therefore, the public policy is drastically lowered the least common denominator. Moreover, their leadership is on the verge of oblivion due to the increased power struggles by competitors. The ousting of a Prime Minister has increased dire consequences when compared to doing away with the leaders of the opposition. Ousting of a Prime Minister has increased concerns as voters will feel their democratic right is violated because they took time to elect the candidate of choice into the Prime Ministership office. Moreover, the voters have the right to feel aggrieved as the campaigns culminating to an election are focused on the preferred leadership of a people.

Increasingly, the continuous ousting of sitting Prime Ministers is having a bearing on the trust issue towards the Australian leadership. As it is conventional to the democracies around the world, Australian voters are entitled to have an unmovable trust towards their democratic system. However, the great leadership and custodians of the democracy system have been eroding the people's trust in them, from the past two decades. According to the research by the University of Canberra Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, less than 41 percent of the entire Australian citizens are satisfied with the current system of democracy. That is a massive decline in trust when compared to the year 1996 when those individual satisfied with the existing democracy stood at 78 percent. Moreover, additional findings by the institution determined the Generation X individuals to be satisfied by 31 percent, while the baby boomers were found as most satisfied with the prevailing conditions of the democracy by 50 percent. In general, women were determined to be less satisfied with how democracy works, as they were identified and evaluated to distrust the politicians and the entire political institutions formulated. The data precede the leadership crisis as felt in Australia currently, as only 21 percent of the citizens' trust politicians. Accordingly, the public is more focused on political reforms following drastic measures to achieve improved political accountability among the MPs, additionally stimulating more participation by the public. That works as a means of enhancing the trust of the people towards the democracy system.

Furthermore, the culture of the coup in Australia makes the leadership of the nation work to alienate the public which currently appears disillusioned. The citizens of Australia are increasingly unable to understand the unusual behavior as witnessed by their elected politicians in office (Holland and Wright 2017). When the views of the members in the community programs are sought, they pose serious questions about the current leadership in Australia. When the community leaders attend the public gallery during question time they are surprised by the lack of dedication of the elected leaders. They witness a house full of disorganization, insults, and shouting which are dreadful from the public gallery. That turn of events in the parliament sends out bad signals to the people attending the public question time at the public gallery. That behavior by the politicians raises many questions with regards to that which has to be done to bring the prevailing conditions under control. Therefore, the community leaders have to devise strategies to bring that kind of behavior to a halt, for instance, through the drafting of letters to their respective MPs asking them to adopt corrective measures recommended therein. These community leaders are perceived to be well-educated and citizens interested to oversee the reform of their democratic system, which they are currently feeling alienated with the turn of events (Holland and Wright 2017).

Australia may arguably be seen to enjoy a rather stable economic and political system, with those in favor of the coup culture noting the turn of things would not jeopardize the nation. However, it is evident continued wrangles and among other internal disputes bring about political instability, and that hampers the ability of Australia to undertake regional or global development effectively (Moyle 2018). Elections are due and fast approaching in 2019; hence Prime Minister Morrison and the entire Liberal party have little time to ensure they develop diplomatic and economic links for the benefit of Australia. The instability in leadership experienced by citizens over the past decade is proving to be a problem for the political leaders as they are trying hard to regain the trust of the masses, more importantly in the democracy system. The economic partnerships between Australia and other nations are also struggling due to unstable leadership. Canberra finds it difficult to develop economic partnerships. For instance, Canberra has been working to secure trade partnerships with the European Union. However, the continued leadership change appears problematic leading to failed deals. Moreover, Australia is having limited influence on brokering a deal with multi-trade partners (Beshara 2013). For instance, the United States and China are Australia's main trading partners who are on the verge of a severe trade war. However, Australia is not at a position of bringing cohesion between her trade partners because of constantly changing leadership, such that the new leader is not experienced enough to broker an understanding between the warring nations. Thus, the governance by Morrison has put the expected economic development in doubt, and that is detrimental to the growth and development of the nation.

Unstable Leadership Negative Expectations from the People

The primary players in the unhealthy coup culture expect the citizens to move on and not question anything about the prevailing situation in the democracy system. They push for the move of people moving on as they are disturbed with the increasing questions from the public, for instance, during the question time at the public gallery. Their MPs running the unstable system of democracy hope things resume to normal and everybody carries on with their work. That expectation of the citizens to accept an unstable leadership due to a poor democratic system has been cited by many critiques and among them Ms. Gillard, as a good government going to oblivion. The latest developments toward a coup against Mr. Turnbull was as a result of hatred, with the public expected to accept the shift in power to the right. The primary players in the coup who were mainly party members were not ready to account for their actions. Hence, that is considered an attitude of a hit-and-run which leads to instability of a solid government, with the effects being contemptuous to the citizens who are expected to move on with their lives as if nothing took place (Tucker 2011).

That attitude is not only contemptuous to the members of the public, but also the politicians themselves. The unstable governance also implies on the fellow politicians who feel bullied by the system (Fraenkel and Firth 2007). For instance, Julia Banks announced her eventual resigning from the subsequent elections citing bullying. Moreover, Linda Reynolds broke the silence when she acknowledged bullying in addition to other intimidation as having a bearing on the way they ought to discharge their duties. Accordingly, she requested drastic reforms be made on the current system of things to bring an end to the discriminatory and intimidating leadership. Despite the calls to change the current democracy system for the better, the response has been that politics is a strong game full of intimidation and bullying. Hence, that is what stands, and politicians are expected to adjust themselves accordingly.

Conclusion

The leadership instability in Australia can be explained to not only impacting negatively the democratic system of the nation, but also the economic and regional cohesion. The coup culture results in the continuous introduction of inexperienced governing prime ministers, hence a government that is generally unstable in its operations. The constant government rotation introduces a minister who does not have stable personal relationsh...