Battlers, Refugees and the Republic: John Howard's Language Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Dyrenfurth.qxd 22/12/2004 3:54 PM Page 183 Battlers, Refugees and the Republic: John Howard’s Language of Citizenship Nick Dyrenfurth Despite his recent fourth consecutive election victory, John Howard’s greatest legacy for the position of Australian prime minister is unlikely to be viewed in terms of policy development but, rather, the language with which he addressed and sought to influence Australian society. Howard’s policy interventions, or lack thereof, have been the source of continued academic and polemical writing. However, while critics such as Judith Brett have accurately drawn together the assorted threads and inspiration of his language, much analysis has floated free of institutional circumstances. In this article I will explain and contextualise the importance of his discourse in relation to the Australian polity, seeking to avoid the often-reactionary criticism Howard receives, which is frequently removed from a critique of the institutional paradigms that legitimate and indeed encourage his languages. The three disparate themes I will discuss, battlers, refugees and the republic, are instructive in regards to Howard’s sense of citizenship. Australian citizenship is bound up in the nature of Australian institutions and their historical formation. The narrative of whiggish or epochal change within societies and amongst nation- states often obfuscates the longer-term ideological and structural continuities at play within the relations and discourses between individuals, classes and institutions of the state. Language is representative of, and reinforces, such structures and tendencies. Political discourse helps create Benedict Anderson’s notion of ‘imagined community’,1 as well as setting the limits of action, thought and possibility. Citizenship has been linked intimately to the rise of the modern nation-state. At the moment Anderson’s now-famous ‘strangers’ were imagining themselves in abstract community, so too were individuals and the institutions of state beginning to develop a relationship with one another. In the intervening years between Robert Menzies’s prime ministership and the last decade of the twentieth century, it has been argued that Australian society was remade. This is articulated within both admonishing and more celebratory accounts as the undoing of the ‘Australian way’.2 With a sense of crisis and resulting urgency, political economy was transformed amid a period of intensified globalisation. Institutions that had sustained traditional frameworks were either dismantled or interrogated. A previously reassuring cultural homogeneity was both materially and symbolically threatened by diverse migration and notions of multiculturalism. Links to Britain had, for all practical intents and purposes, been severed, resulting in an increasingly anachronistic and monarchical formal head of state. The idea of the British citizen subject carried little meaningful status for Australian citizens. Scholars have documented the legal and administrative ‘ad hoc’ evolutions of Australian citizenship.3 Yet the formal category of Australian citizenship remains contested and the subject of much national debate. In the absence of definitive constitutional or statutory meaning, it was the language of citizenship that filled Dyrenfurth.qxd 22/12/2004 3:54 PM Page 184 Backburning the ‘vacuum’. Australian citizenship has been the (at times uneasy) admixture of ideals and practice, inclusion and exclusion.4 Moreover, it has often been infused with varying degrees of morality, with civic citizenship positioned as a ‘desirable activity’.5 The language of Australian citizenship legitimises and structures discourse, practice and content, and usually claims the interest of the whole in the name of social harmony.6 Mainstream politics has colonised this discursive space; each major party acts within this paradigm, seeking to derive meaning and supremacy, shaping a story of the nation that will create their meanings of past, present and future. For much of its history, Labor privileged its role in socially harmonistic nation-building, interpellating citizens through their primary identity as workers. The term ‘citizen’ was a vexed one for Labourists, its abstraction conflicting with Labor’s idealisation of the practicality of the worker (and politician). For Australian Liberals, the dilemma was less problematic. They explicitly interpelated citizens as individuals and families, arguing for a moral conception of the nation above the fractious ties of class and other fragmentary social groupings, in ‘the language of respectability, deference to Britain and support for the institutions of state’.7 A full account of citizenship must emphasise the highly symbolic, rhetorical and iconographical tools that have defined, and themselves been defined by, public discourse.8 The language of citizenship is never static, being historically contingent and specific. It draws upon and adapts past discourses, as both tradition and present guides to action. How Australians, particularly the nation’s leaders, have ‘imagined’ and ‘argued’ the citizen has framed the boundaries of citizenship. There is an important caveat to such a prioritisation of language: it must act within a certain social reality, rather than necessarily governing social life itself. To understand citizenship more fully, we need to explore its significant intricacies, paying close attention to various constructions of language that have historically utilised (while often simultaneously admonishing) certain peoples within the abstraction and increasing mediation of the public sphere. According to Helen Irving, Australian citizenship developed from the nineteenth century onward as a social construction, rather than a formal political or legal category: [A] concern with citizenship as a particular type of community, imbued with a particular character, has been consistent in Australian history, and the advent of citizenship law has had little impact upon it.9 The early citizen ‘would be a type of person found within the legal category of British subject, but having extra characteristics or qualifications’; thus, ‘the political rights we most readily associate now with citizenship were in this rhetoric not what defined a citizen but what followed from being a citizen’.10 As practice and language demonstrate, the tradition of the imagined type and character has extended (however imperfectly) into the present. In the absence of adequate constitutional or statutory explication, the theoretical notion of a language of Australian citizenship is suggestive, both theoretically and practically. Historically, the language of citizenship has been dominated by the intertwined notions of work and independence, infused with a sense of national identity and moral character.11 For Labor, work was the means by which one could realise independence. In Liberal discourse, it was the mere 184 Dyrenfurth.qxd 22/12/2004 3:54 PM Page 185 Nick Dyrenfurth representation of more intrinsic individual character and (male) judgement, supplemented by notions of duty and service. Such contingent constructions have been increasingly crowded by ‘new competing languages’,12 challenging the homogenous identity of Australians through the notions of race, gender and even consumerism. Nevertheless, the mainstream language of citizenship remains important, actively shaping the experiences of our society and its members. John Howard’s language is the focus of a growing body of academic and journalistic literature, which generally seeks to admonish, rather than search for, the intertwining of the structural, ideological and personal dimensions within his contingent discourse.13 As Paul Strangio argues in his recent review of the edited collection The Howard Years,14 such ‘modulated and sustained moral fury’ is unlikely to engage in ‘constructive dialogue’, and merely scratches the surface of Howard’s tactical politicking. By contrast, Brett suggests: Howard’s opponents have been misled by his own description of himself as a social conservative and so missed his takeover of the symbolic repertoire of Australia’s radical nationalist past to reconnect Australian liberalism with ordinary Australian experience.15 Indeed, in her opinion, ‘Howard has emerged as the most creative Australian Liberal since Menzies, as he … reworked the images, themes and arguments of Liberal Party philosophy’. In Brett’s view Howard, like Menzies, draws on but adapts an ‘inherited political language … recreating a language of social unity and cohesion for the Liberals’.16 While this is undoubtedly true, and Howard is clearly a successful practitioner of Australian liberalism, I would argue that Howard is symptomatic of, and bound up within, a larger institutional and ideological problem: the reliance upon a historically exclusivist discourse that structures and contains collective possibilities. We have reached the contingent point of the continued failure and reproduction of a political culture, as expressed through institutional and ideological settings. Howard, as prime minster, has indeed constructed a coherent and ostensibly consensual language.17 Set-piece speeches and ad hoc interviews both demonstrate the growing vitality and confidence of Howard’s language after 1996 and especially from 2001. Howard’s language spoke of ‘battlers’ and ‘elites’, and was eventually wielded against the embodied form of the refugee. Such language fetishises both an ideal type and the institutions that create and sustain such citizens, while objectifying