Vive la difference but dump the political ideology
France is considered a particularly cerebral nation, rooted in history and ideology, a place where the phrase ‘‘that’s all very well in practice, but will it work in theory?’’ is not necessarily uttered in jest and where studying philosophy is mandatory for secondary students.
It’s an image ostensibly epitomised by France’s young, neophyte President, Emmanuel Macron, a philosophy graduate, who arrives in Australia on Tuesday primarily to discuss a free-trade deal and the federal government’s $50 billion purchase of French submarines.
But the reality is that Mr Macron, a former investment banker, surged a year ago this week to presidential power and then to parliamentary hegemony after explicitly rejecting conventional political practice and ideology. His refreshing rejection of the hackneyed notions of ‘‘left’’ and ‘‘right’’ is sensible, for it elevates evidence and efficacy above all other policy considerations.
It is a change, we have long argued, Australia should make. But when he meets over the coming three days with Australia’s political class, Mr Macron will encounter men and women clinging to outmoded ideological battles, even though our lawmakers agree on far more than they differ.
The faux fights in Australian politics are wearisome and have created disillusionment; voters here and abroad have been abandoning mainstream parties seen as more interested in simply snaring power than using it to make life better and fairer. To be sure, there are valid disagreements to be had, but they generally concern matters of degree and implementation rather than any fundamental divergence.
Mr Macron was briefly finance minister (the equivalent of treasurer here) in the previous administration and is considered economically literate.
His policies include: strengthening economic and fiscal collaboration throughout the European Union; making the labour market more flexible, but keeping the 35-hour week; cutting the massive size of the French government (spending represents about 56 per cent of GDP, as against about 24 per cent here) by reducing public spending and reducing public employee numbers by attrition; cutting income and company taxes; and ending unduly large retirement incomes.
He is being attacked for instigating policies for which he received a massive mandate. In recent times in Australia, backlash has come for the opposite reason: politicians have been pilloried for doing things they did not flag, and for not doing things they were expected to deliver.
‘‘Left’’ and ‘‘right’’ have lost meaning, and are unhelpful to rational debate. When an evidence-based case can be made that what is the case is not what ought to be the case, we and our lawmakers should seek change; we should be progressive. When the opposite is demonstrably true, when there is no gap between is and ought, we should fight change, we should be conservative.
There are many important debates we need to have – but on the basis of data and evidence, not ideology. This evolution is positive, but is causing mainstream parties existential angst. President Macron’s party did not exist until little over a year ago.
Another of his policies is to cut the number of lawmakers in both houses of Parliament by 30 per cent. It’s an interesting idea.