Promises mighty, performance nothing by Gunduz Kalic

At their peak, star performers can do no wrong: effortlessly, they play the crowd.  In the theatre of Australian politics, Prime Minister John Howard has been succeeding brilliantly in "surfing" the emotions of the mainstream public.  Yet, in showbusiness terms, it is apparent that Howard is making a fundamental mistake, which, if it continues, will ultimately turn off his audience.

As he completes his first year in office, our Prime Minister shows signs of succumbing to a sort of "Betty Davis" syndrome: his political performance as the dazzlingly ordinary "battler's PM" has begun to look too good to be true.

Yes, the performances of stars can, on occasion, indeed actually be "too" excellent.  Sometimes, stars get so carried with their own talent that they forget about the show as a whole.  They forget that star qualities shine best when in service of a first class show.  They forget that the show they are in might be about something; that it might have meaning and substance above and beyond the audience's adoration of them as star.

This is the trap into which Howard seems to be failing.  Consider- as Robert Manne puts it "Howard has fashioned for himself the image of the politician who represents decent ordinary Australians against the bullying of the politically correct ... elite".  Thus, if the political "show" in which Howard has star billing has a "name" what can this be but "For All Of Us", as per the Liberal Party's campaign slogan?  In the Prime Minister's own words, he and his government are in service of "all of us" against the "narrower agendas of elites ... (the) amalgamation of special interests".

To his credit as a performer, Howard has demonstrated as exquisite instinct for good lines, for current words and phrases which well and truly "hit the spot" for his political audience in middle Australia.  He has tapped into the "revolt against the elites": the popular anxiety and distrust which has followed in the wake of globalisation and wave after wave of economic rationalisation.

In fact, Howard has gone so far as to put two of the most controversial books of the 1990's on the top of his reading list.  When asked recently by veteran journalist Michelle Grattan what he has been reading lately, the first book the PM named was Voltaire's Bastard's by Canadian novelist and historian John Ralston Saul. (Saul is visiting Queensland in March as an international guest at the Somerset 'Celebration of Literature' on the Gold Coast.) Second on the Prime Minister's book list was The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy by the late American historian and social critic Christopher Lasch.  These two books, written independently of one another earlier in this decade, passionately put forth the notion that the "elites" - the 20% or so of the population at the top of the social ladder are betraying democracy.  In other words, betraying the rest of us. 

According to authors Saul and Lasch, throughout the West (including Australia) the elites have abandoned the greater interests of their societies as a whole.  The day to day way of life of those in the 'leadership groups' atop the main sectors of society is increasingly out of touch with the common life lived by ordinary people.  And the modus operandi used by the elites in their conduct of public affairs is based on an amoral and badly flawed rationality, which disregards all common sense, and causes more problems than it solves.

A reading of recent speeches by Howard, particularly the Menzies address of late last year shows that key phrases from the Saul/lLasch attack on the elites have made their way into his political vocabulary.  The trouble is, the hero of a drama entitled "For All Of Us" will naturally, sooner or later, be expected to do more than merely talk a new "battler friendly" kind of polispeak.  If the dramatic action in the show doesn't match the promise of the lines, the audience will become unhappy with the performance, no matter how beautifully crafted and evocative the lines are.

The playwright George Bernard Shaw required of his publisher that the traditional cast list not be included in editions of his plays.  His intention was to force actors looking at his work to actually read the entire play - and, hopefully, to perhaps take an interest in what the play was about.  Normally, Shaw felt, actors merely skimmed through to count their own lines.  And then calculated how well they might be able to use these to make themselves shine onstage.

According to Michelle Grattan, Prime Minister Howard found Voltaire's Bastards "a very hard book, but very interesting - it challenged a whole lot of conventional beliefs".  He didn't finish it.

Perhaps it is unfortunate that Howard did not complete the book.  If he had, he might have digested more fully Saul's main point: throughout the Western democracies language is being cut off from reality.  Words are being used to confuse, rather than for purposes of communication.  And the consequence is that we - including politicians - are becoming stuck in a world where it is increasingly difficult to distinguish what is real from our fictions.

Even at the best of times, stars tend to fall in love with their own reflections.  In his background and accomplishments the Prime Minister is "ordinary Australia writ large"; his sensibility is "at one" with middle Australia, we are often told.  All the better to "fashion" and fall in love with - "an image of the politician who represents decent ordinary Australians".  "Honest John" Howard appears to really and truly believe that he is the battlers PM.  All the better to convince himself and us.

Yet, even in showbusiness, one must keep some kind of a grip on reality.  Despite much rhetoric and many bylines to the contrary, a policy by policy examination of what the Coalition is up to shows that, at best, government action is neutral in terms of benefiting the lifestyle and prospects of middle Australia.  Certainly, the "relaxed and comfortable" Howard government is doing nothing to stand against the tide of the immense international forces inexorably pushing more and more wealth, status and decision making power into the hands of the few.

If "For All Of Us" really is, as advertised, what Prime Minister John Howard's political show is about, then he ought to devote less attention to his virtuoso delivery - and get back to the real script, remembering that it is not the star but the play that "is the thing".  Otherwise his career epitaph may read, with Shakespeare's Henry III, "his promises were, as he was then, mighty, but his performance, as he is now, nothing."