Login
iscover
No matter where one looks, the democratic world is besieged — at home, we face the challenges of increasingly polarised populations, abroad, we face the growing question of the multipolar world and the impact of a competitive world. In light of these issues, how does Australia and Australians, a traditionally complacent nation and people, respond?
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
On the global stage, this confluence of domestic challenges are exacerbated by the increasingly subversive and predatory behaviours of global totalitarian leaders — these leaders are seemingly circling the declining democratic world the way wolves circle wounded prey before striking the killing blow and are taking great pride in their designs for global domination and the undermining of institutional legitimacy, economic, and political stability, and social cohesiveness throughout the democratic world.
Now many a pundit will cite the US-led response to Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine that there is hope yet for the post-Second World War order that Australia has invested heavily in and in some ways they’re correct, the rallying behind Ukraine has revealed a glimmer of hope for the democratic world — however, despite this, public perception reveals a startling truth, this is reflected in a poll conducted by Statista titled, Fragile Democracy, which states:
“While democracy has held out in the United States after the Capitol riot and so far in Brazil now too ...The share of the world living in either an electoral or liberal democracy was at its highest in the year 2000 when the figure was at 54 per cent. This took a steep dive in 2019, dropping from 50 per cent down to just 32. While the fragility of democracy is also plain to see elsewhere in the chart, this is the most dramatic example over the assessed period.”
Going further, Statista raises an important question, “The rise of democracy has been one of the greatest collective human achievements of the last century, allowing large shares of the world’s population to live in relative freedom and have the ability to alter the politics and society of their country. Has this expansion already peaked though?”
Beyond the obvious structural differences between the two blocs of the newly emerging multipolar world, these totalitarian nations set themselves apart with clear-headed ideas of their national identity and potential, committed, and most importantly, deliberate in their ambitions and actions to wrestle global leadership from the democratic world; simply put, these are serious nations.
Facing the grand irony — Liberal democracy may be its own worst enemy
The grand irony is, the members of the democratic world used to be serious nations, where once we were the moral, political, economic, and strategic authority, we now see major powers like Germany devolving under the weight of captured political ideologues which now means millions of Germans are being instructed on how to forage for firewood and kindling to keep their homes heated during winter, rather than restarting nuclear power plants, all to teach Putin’s Russia a lesson.
Russia’s response? Well, you need to look no further than Reddit, Twitter, or 4Chan, where Russian trolls live stream 24-hour videos of them heating their homes, often to near tropical temperatures solely from the gas of their kitchen stoves for less than $2.50 a day! Boy, we sure showed the Russians!
Then we see other European bedwetters, like Ursula von der Leyen actively attempting to coerce and threaten the Italian population in the lead up to that country’s election late last year, by stating: “If things go in a difficult direction, we have the tools.” All because new Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s party is of the centre right (with some very historic and tenuous links to Mussolini’s fascist party, like many political parties in modern Italy) and Meloni herself has proudly declared that she would unapologetically defend: “God, country, and family”.
Not to be outdone by continental Europe, across the Anglosphere nations of the democratic world, we have brought into the rampant cause de jour of identity politics, inherited original sin for the crimes of previous generations and we have alienated our young people by making it virtually impossible to own a meaningful piece of their nation. Compounding this, they have been condemned to a life of renting or struggling with crippling mortgage debt to own a home on a 350 square-metre block or a 150 square-metre apartment and are constantly pushed further out of the workforce into increasingly insecure job market.
Then there is the collapsing levels of social cohesion and discontent compounded by the rising economic pressures on the average family, racial and gender tensions and division driven from within, and by external subversion and grey zone operations by Russia and China, who seek to undermine, delegitimise, and destroy the post-Second World War order, fulfilling the prediction of Russian-born, US researcher Ariel Durant who said, “A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
Sure, the West isn’t perfect, we’ve made mistakes, many in the last 30 years, particularly in the Middle East, but no system, no nation, and no people are perfect — but our collective record of lifting humanity and the individual stands for itself.
Is it any wonder that the nation’s that take themselves seriously, and enforce rigorous, competitive standards on themselves, that have embraced their young people, are proud of their history and teach it, nurtured the population with a powerful and invigorating national vision, backed by clear and communicated ambitions and objectives are on the march around the globe?
What way for the ‘lucky country’?
Looking closer to home, we have Australia, the “lucky country”, the land of the perennial tall poppy syndrome and the “she’ll be right” attitude that has seemingly served us so well when it comes to the future of our national and individual freedoms, prosperity, and security, or has it? And what comes next?
Even in the lucky country, every day we are reminded by our leaders that we live in unprecedented times — social unrest and declining social cohesion are compounded by the lingering impacts and distrust wrought by the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns about the impact of climate change, and the rising potential of global conflict, yet no one really seems to be taking things seriously — despite their rhetoric.
Political leaders on the centre-Left like to reinforce that “the adults are back in charge”, while those on the centre-Right continue to squabble over the best way to rebuild their political fortunes: Neo-Thatcherism, or Neo-Reaganism — which no matter how you look at it, are two sides of the same coin.
While Australia isn’t alone in facing these challenges, our position in the world requires a radical departure from the status quo of how Australia as a nation responds. For too long, the idea that national security and economic opportunity are two mutually exclusive pillars of national governance has left the nation woefully, no, hilariously unprepared to not just survive, but thrive in this new era of disruption.
First and foremost, COVID-19 has taught the Australian people that we are incredibly vulnerable to the whims of what US geostrategic analyst Peter Zeihan calls the “just in time” economy, that is, companies often stock little in the way of inventory and are dependent on increasingly complex, cheap global supply chains to provide the goods, just in time. Recent years have demonstrated that these supply chains are often inviting targets for nation-state brinkmanship and coercion for geopolitical, economic, and strategic gain.
While Australia, and the world pivoted in some cases, the economic impact of ongoing lockdowns in China, combined with the nation’s wolf warrior diplomacy and economic combativeness is a genie that we won’t be able to get back into the bottle.
Australia, unlike the United States, for example, has not embraced the opportunities presented by this paradigm shift, with both sides of the nation’s political divide unwilling to adapt and provide the policy, tax, and employment incentives necessary to establish Australia as a new, competitive, and resilient economic power in its own right. Where the US has begun, albeit slowly a shift toward re-industrialisation, Australia, a similarly sized and blessed continent continues to sputter along, reinventing the wheel then wondering why we consistently fail to move the needle in our industrial capacity or national resilience.
Hell, Australia can’t even work out that it needs to build new dams to prevent disastrous flooding or to store water and drought-proof the nation, or that nuclear power is capable of providing reliable, base load power that can power the re-industrialisation and revitalisation of the nation’s economic and scientific ambition and potential.
Many an Australian media, political, and policy pundit has called for both sides to do something to respond to these challenges, what have we got instead? State and Territory government’s bickering over their split of the GST, rampant pork barrelling, a declining level of industrialisation, and a relative collapse in the confidence and investment in the nation by the Australian public — meanwhile, no matter where you look, the globalisation Australia is dependent on is in retreat.
Young Australians feel let down by generations of politicians who don’t take their concerns seriously, whether it is climate change, or their inability to afford a quality home at a reasonable price, combined with the increasingly unstable job market and to a lesser extent, the pervasive political polarisation of our young people means the next generations have little investment in the future.
Thus, these young people are far more unlikely to defend the nation in any serious manner — despite the growing threats in our region, meanwhile, older Australians repeatedly feel that generations of politicians have failed the nation, with a belief that their concerns about economic security, national security, de-industrialisation, the collapsing rate of social cohesion and standards repeatedly fall on deaf ears.
As is often common, both sides make valid points, but the common denominator is the fact that our policymakers consistently fail to take these concerns seriously. Our leaders also fail to respond to these challenges seriously due to concerns over political survival — ironically, solving the situation isn’t a case of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” but rather, addressing the concerns of both parties will result in greater political investment, and critically, loyalty.
Yet, in another grand irony, the Australian public are increasingly calling for the nation’s leaders to take our future more seriously, if not explicitly, then most certainly implicitly — yet again we have seen little progress to respond.
The challenge is twofold, where Australia’s political leaders don’t appear to be taking these matters seriously or engaging with the Australian public in large part, the public also fails to, beyond the inevitable arguments around the Christmas lunch table.
It is this self-fulfilling prophecy which severely limits our capacity to seriously and directly respond to the challenges arrayed against us.
But what can be done about it?
Well, first and foremost, our policymakers need to take both the concerns of, and the Australian public more seriously — in particular, their demands for a more considered, long-term plan for our national future more seriously, and where there is disagreement, avoid falling into the trap of branding one side “right wing extremists”, “reactionaries” or the other “snowflakes”.
Meanwhile, the Australian public, on the other hand, need to demand better of their decision-makers, but also begin to move away from the malaise of tall poppy syndrome and “she’ll be right” to believe that Australia can become something greater than we currently are.
As the democratic world continues to devolve into a narcissistic clown world, even humble Australia can set itself apart.
We can emerge as a new leader. A new light on the hill, and bulwark against the march of totalitarian nations — but in order to achieve this, we need to empower the individual, through the traditional values of democratic nations: liberty, responsibility, and meritocracy, and most importantly, we need to take ourselves, our potential, and our responsibility to preserve the principles, history, and embers of democracy more seriously.
For if we don’t, who will?
Lessons for Australia’s future strategic planning
There is no doubt that Australia’s position and responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific region will depend on the nation’s ability to sustain itself economically, strategically and politically in the face of rising regional and global competition. Despite the nation’s virtually unrivalled wealth of natural resources, agricultural and industrial potential, there is a lack of a cohesive national security strategy integrating the development of individual, yet complementary public policy strategies to support a more robust Australian role in the region.
While contemporary Australia has been far removed from the harsh realities of conflict, with many generations never enduring the reality of rationing for food, energy, medical supplies or luxury goods, and even fewer within modern Australia understanding the socio-political and economic impact such rationing would have on the now world-leading Australian standard of living.
Enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities in supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia, this is particularly well explained by Peter Zeihan, who explains: “A deglobalised world doesn’t simply have a different economic geography, it has thousands of different and separate geographies. Economically speaking, the whole was stronger for the inclusion of all its parts. It is where we have gotten our wealth and pace of improvement and speed. Now the parts will be weaker for their separation.”
As events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain a secondary power, or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch
Stephen Kuper
Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.
