Bottom Line
Why John Howard lost
Kevin Rudd (50), a former diplomat, has surprised his predecessor John Howard (trained as a lawyer) by winning a 22 seat majority in the 150-member Parliament. The victory has been described as "Ruddslide" in the local media.
According to latest reports, his Labour Party may win 86 seats (76 required to form the government), and John Howard (68) may suffer a humiliating defeat if he is not elected to parliament from his own constituency in Sydney (Bennelong). Since 1929, no prime minister has suffered a defeat in his own constituency, and if that occurs he would be the second prime minister of Australia to do so.
Here is a man, Howard, who behaved like a "king," and walked like a "king" in the corridors of parliament in Canberra. He has been the Leader of the Liberal Party (conservative) for more than decade and controlled the party with an iron hand.
He thought he could not lose the election because the economy has been booming in Australia, thanks to China's demand for Australian minerals. The country is a trillion dollar economy with only 20 million people.
Howard tried to portray Rudd as somewhat superficial, but the message did not sell with the electorate. Howard thought he was politically invincible, became too confident, and considered that a strong economy was everything in life.
He was also too late in handing over power to his second man. Thus, he became boring and stale to the majority of the electorate. As he was too greedy for power, he had to go politically, as a leader defeated by a younger man. Some say he had no sense of timing, and did not know when to retire. He has been forced to leave the political scene. He could have gone with grace and dignity.
When the economy is good voters do not ordinarily change the government. But the adage "Man does not live on bread alone" has caught up with Howard. He had neglected issues of social justice, climate change, Aboriginal re-conciliation, and rights of refugees.
After more than eleven and half years of rule by Howard, Australia had become a "barren country" according to Robert Manne, Professor of Politics, La Trobe University, Melbourne, and a columnist for leading newspapers.
According to Professor Manne, Australia under Prime Minister John Howard has been a divided society. Social divisions between "winners" and "losers," between city and rural areas, and employers and workers, continue to run deep, like those in Britain under Margaret Thatcher in the 80s.
Manne, in his book "The Barren Years" (2001), described that the narrowing of the national vision -- closing of minds and hardening of hearts, failure of reconciliation with the Aboriginal community, the treatment of refugees in prison-style camps, continuing ties with the British monarchy (rejecting Australia as a Republic), and blindly following President Bush in foreign policy -- was the cornerstone of the Howard government.
All through his life, he has been proud of being a diehard conservative among the conservatives in social outlook. He did not, at one stage, believe in the multi-cultural society of Australia.
Australians are, by and large, open, good-hearted, multi-cultural, outward looking and have an innate sense of judging an individual on merit and "fair go" principle. Young people are enlightened, visit overseas and are in tune with Asian cultures. Bali (Indonesia) has been one of the most popular holiday resorts for Australians.
Why did Kevin Rudd win?
There are many reasons, but some of them deserve mention: First, Rudd is a much younger person and has projected a new vision for the country. He has understood the pulse of the majority of Australians, especially that of the young (Y generation). The Rudd campaign picked the issues that mattered to people -- education, broadband, hospitals and climate change -- and highlighted the tiredness and increasing irrelevance of the Howard government. Second, although Rudd has confirmed Australia's alliance with the US, he does not want to follow US foreign policy blindly. He knew that Howard had sent Australian soldiers to Iraq because of his personal close association with President Bush, and that the majority of voters did not support this action. Rudd, during the election campaign, announced that he would withdraw combat troops from Iraq. This has been a popular and sensible decision for the majority of the electorate. Third, Howard had seriously underestimated Rudd. He thought, or perhaps hoped, that Rudd would be another failed Labour leader, or that he was little known and Australians would not endorse him without a much longer look. He further thought that Australians would only elect someone as PM if he had a long history in public life. Rudd has been in the parliament only for 9 years, compared to Howard's 33 years. Fourth, Howard's Labour laws of 2006 (called Workchoices) were unpopular with workers because of their bias towards employers. The rights of workers had been taken away under the laws. Howard got nowhere in selling Workchoices, and if he had not fallen out of touch with the mood of people he would have dumped it or, at least, re-worked it significantly at least 12 months ago. Rudd seized the opportunity to announce that he would amend the laws to restore the rights of workers. Rudd also used Workchoices to position the conservatives as being locked in the old battle between business and workers. He has talked of a united nation, not one that moves ahead at the expense of the vulnerable. The Australian public could not be pushed too far in reforms, and Rudd has promised a far more consultative and inclusive approach to the reform tasks ahead. Fifth, for the last one year, since Rudd became the leader of the Labour Party, he has been able to sell his message to the Australian people. He is articulate and intelligent, and has demonstrated his depth of knowledge in national affairs. He declared that he would ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol if he was elected. This declaration went very well with the majority of voters because the country has been suffering from drought for several years, and they accuse Howard of not doing anything about degradation of the environment. Howard again blindly followed President Bush in not ratifying the Protocol (the US and Australia are the only two developed countries that have refused to ratify the Protocol). Sixth, Rudd is a new generation national leader. He was born in the late 1950s and lost his father at the age of nine. He had to struggle through life and saw himself as a friend of the poorer section of the community. He had a diplomatic assignment in Beijing and can speak Mandarin with ease and fluency. At the last September Apec meeting in Sydney, he spoke to the Chinese president in Mandarin. Seventh and finally, observers say that while Howard and his colleagues had injected fear into their six-week election campaigning, Rudd campaigned with positive notes. By making the promises of a wonderful future, instead of injecting fear of the future, Rudd convinced the voters that he would be able to deal with future issues with ability and competence. It seems that Australian voters are more intelligent than the leaders of the Liberal Party. They saw something of substance and potential in Rudd that the conservatives, including some right-wing commentators, could not perceive. Rudd used his victory speech on November 24 evening to position himself as a national leader, not as someone there to push the interests of a particular group. Though he heads a resurgent Labour Party, he is very different from the old Labour leaders of the past. Rudd has a real sense of Australia's place among the nations of the world. His life-experience provided him a strong sense of Australia's future in Asia. It may not be forgotten that in 1972, Australia was one of the first few developed countries that recognised Bangladesh (on January 31, 1972). It was under a Labour government led by Prime Minister Whitlam, who later paid a visit to Dhaka in January, 1975. When a right-wing prime minister is changed, the country is bound to change, and Australia, hopefully, will change for the better under the Rudd government. Barrister Harun ur Rashid is former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN and former High Commissioner to Australia.
There are many reasons, but some of them deserve mention: First, Rudd is a much younger person and has projected a new vision for the country. He has understood the pulse of the majority of Australians, especially that of the young (Y generation). The Rudd campaign picked the issues that mattered to people -- education, broadband, hospitals and climate change -- and highlighted the tiredness and increasing irrelevance of the Howard government. Second, although Rudd has confirmed Australia's alliance with the US, he does not want to follow US foreign policy blindly. He knew that Howard had sent Australian soldiers to Iraq because of his personal close association with President Bush, and that the majority of voters did not support this action. Rudd, during the election campaign, announced that he would withdraw combat troops from Iraq. This has been a popular and sensible decision for the majority of the electorate. Third, Howard had seriously underestimated Rudd. He thought, or perhaps hoped, that Rudd would be another failed Labour leader, or that he was little known and Australians would not endorse him without a much longer look. He further thought that Australians would only elect someone as PM if he had a long history in public life. Rudd has been in the parliament only for 9 years, compared to Howard's 33 years. Fourth, Howard's Labour laws of 2006 (called Workchoices) were unpopular with workers because of their bias towards employers. The rights of workers had been taken away under the laws. Howard got nowhere in selling Workchoices, and if he had not fallen out of touch with the mood of people he would have dumped it or, at least, re-worked it significantly at least 12 months ago. Rudd seized the opportunity to announce that he would amend the laws to restore the rights of workers. Rudd also used Workchoices to position the conservatives as being locked in the old battle between business and workers. He has talked of a united nation, not one that moves ahead at the expense of the vulnerable. The Australian public could not be pushed too far in reforms, and Rudd has promised a far more consultative and inclusive approach to the reform tasks ahead. Fifth, for the last one year, since Rudd became the leader of the Labour Party, he has been able to sell his message to the Australian people. He is articulate and intelligent, and has demonstrated his depth of knowledge in national affairs. He declared that he would ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol if he was elected. This declaration went very well with the majority of voters because the country has been suffering from drought for several years, and they accuse Howard of not doing anything about degradation of the environment. Howard again blindly followed President Bush in not ratifying the Protocol (the US and Australia are the only two developed countries that have refused to ratify the Protocol). Sixth, Rudd is a new generation national leader. He was born in the late 1950s and lost his father at the age of nine. He had to struggle through life and saw himself as a friend of the poorer section of the community. He had a diplomatic assignment in Beijing and can speak Mandarin with ease and fluency. At the last September Apec meeting in Sydney, he spoke to the Chinese president in Mandarin. Seventh and finally, observers say that while Howard and his colleagues had injected fear into their six-week election campaigning, Rudd campaigned with positive notes. By making the promises of a wonderful future, instead of injecting fear of the future, Rudd convinced the voters that he would be able to deal with future issues with ability and competence. It seems that Australian voters are more intelligent than the leaders of the Liberal Party. They saw something of substance and potential in Rudd that the conservatives, including some right-wing commentators, could not perceive. Rudd used his victory speech on November 24 evening to position himself as a national leader, not as someone there to push the interests of a particular group. Though he heads a resurgent Labour Party, he is very different from the old Labour leaders of the past. Rudd has a real sense of Australia's place among the nations of the world. His life-experience provided him a strong sense of Australia's future in Asia. It may not be forgotten that in 1972, Australia was one of the first few developed countries that recognised Bangladesh (on January 31, 1972). It was under a Labour government led by Prime Minister Whitlam, who later paid a visit to Dhaka in January, 1975. When a right-wing prime minister is changed, the country is bound to change, and Australia, hopefully, will change for the better under the Rudd government. Barrister Harun ur Rashid is former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN and former High Commissioner to Australia.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments