Why Australia Needs Pauline Hanson!

Love her or hate her, Pauline Hanson is in the political spotlight again after being voted back into the Senate at the last Australian Federal election!  Personally, I don't agree with most of Pauline's views and I am often offended by her public comments.  You only need to read my blog posts on asylum seekers, poverty & justice, Christian values, and interfaith dialogue to get a sense of my political views.

But far from writing her off as an "irrelevance" as did former Prime Minister John Howard or dismissing her as "not a welcome presence in the Australian political scene" like current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Pauline Hanson represents an important voice that needs to be heard.

No, I haven't gone mad!  Nor do I support "politics of fear and hate" (as categorised by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten).  So please stay with me as I explain why I think Australia needs Pauline Hanson...

There has been a seismic shift in social dialogue about critical issues facing Australian society with a strong left of centre voice primarily represented by mainstream media. Tolerance, inclusion and compassion are today's socially acceptable values with any views interpreted as violating these values condemned and shut out of the conversation. Recently, a number of celebrities have been publicly criticised and censored for expressing such points of view.  On the surface this appears to be a positive shift in societal attitude, but below the surface another type of intolerance is emerging that violates the same space that is being defended.  When opposing views are labelled or stifled, robust conversation descends into one-sided commentary that pushes frustrated views underground.  If these views are not allowed to be expressed in respectful public dialogue, no matter how distasteful they may be, they will manifest themselves in behaviours that may have far greater social consequences than offending someone. 

People need to be heard.  Leadership consultant Patrick Lencioni says, "people don't so much have an innate need to have their own way as to have their way considered." Someone like Pauline Hanson has been granted a platform by 587,250 frustrated Australians to have their voices considered.  We may disagree with some of these voices but we need to listen to them.  To dismiss them as 'stupid' or 'bigoted' without considering the concerns underlying their view of reality only serves to widen already deep divisions among Australians.  During the 2013 election, former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson is quoted as saying, "The greater the potpourri of ideas we've got in a pluralist society the better the chance we have of getting good policy out of it."  We will never resolve the serious issues facing our country while we continue to suppress complex views and demonise the people who attempt to bring them to the table for open discussion.

I may not like or agree with Pauline Hanson but Australia needs people like her who have the courage to represent unpopular views that are rumbling under the surface.  My fear is that unless the tone and manner of public debate changes soon, these rumblings will erupt into serious social unrest.

Changing The Conversation

When an aboriginal footballer is booed for performing a "war dance" that incites a crowd, the fans are accused of RACISM.

When a female politician is criticised for leadership that divides a political party, politicians are accused of MYSOGYNY.

When a same-sex couple is challenged about a lifestyle that contradicts biblical values, Christians are accused of HOMOPHOBIA.

When refugees are condemned for seeking asylum through "illegal" channels, opponents are accused of INJUSTICE.

There is no doubt that there are people who are prejudiced against other races, those who show contempt for women, some who fear homosexuals and others who oppose migrants.  Regrettably, there are attitudes and behaviours still prevalent in our society that are intended to be discriminative and divisive.  However, a conflict of values and opposing views does not automatically warrant a label that prejudges the heart of a person expressing a different worldview. 

The tone of social commentary in recent times has relegated political correctness and popular opinion to the same level of prejudice that devalues human beings who do not conform to cultural norms.  It is ironic that what is meant to promote tolerance seems to provoke the exact opposite, projecting the very same values that are deemed to be offensive.  This in no way condones discrimination on any side of an argument, but highlights the 'white elephant' of reverse discrimination that has hijacked civil debate in a society that has historically defended freedom of speech, celebrated cultural diversity and protected religious rights.

There is part a speech from one of my favourite movies, The American President, that describes well our current social and political environment in Australia:  "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"...We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."

Before you are tempted to point the finger at our politicians with a resounding, "YES!", this is also reflective of how we try to win arguments through social commentary.  Shutting down different views or demonising those who express them does nothing to solve the problems we face today.  In order to change the conversation and create the platform for respectful and robust dialogue, it is worth repeating and drawing wisdom from a statement made by former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson prior to the last federal election, which I have quoted on numerous occasions: 

"We are losing the art of civil debate in our society, as we secularize...because we are losing the ability to understand the value of the other person.  Voltaire is accredited as saying, "I may disagree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  That's not the way we conduct the debate at the moment in this country or in the west.  If we don't like someone else's debate now, we demonise the person who puts the idea on the table.  Voltaire understood...that each individual ought to be valued enough for you to say let them put their idea on the table, then we'll debate that idea.  The greater the potpourri of ideas we've got in a pluralist society the better the chance we have of getting good policy out of it.  We will never get good policy in this country again until we learn how to have a civilized debate where we debate the issues and decide the case on the merits, not on, sorry to say it, popular applause."

The wisdom in this statement is applicable to any conversation that seeks to address the complex issues and engage the diversity of thought that challenges our values and beliefs as Australians.

Postscript:  See my previous thoughts on this subject in my post Civility v's Hostility written two years ago.

Civility v's Hostility

"We are losing the art of civil debate in our society, as we secularize...because we are losing the ability to understand the value of the other person.  Voltaire is accredited as saying, "I may disagree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  That's not the way we conduct the debate at the moment in this country or in the west.  If we don't like someone else's debate now, we demonise the person who puts the idea on the table.  Voltaire understood...that each individual ought to be valued enough for you to say let them put their idea on the table, then we'll debate that idea.  The greater the potpourri of ideas we've got in a pluralist society the better the chance we have of getting good policy out of it.  We will never get good policy in this country again until we learn how to have a civilized debate where we debate the issues and decide the case on the merits, not on, sorry to say it, popular applause." - John Anderson, former deputy Prime Minister

Last night, the Australian Christian Lobby hosted the Make It Count 2013 Election Webcast, featuring a panel of experts presenting a Christian worldview on a wide range of issues being debated during the current election campaign.  While there were many viewpoints expressed of interest to me, I was particularly interested by what former deputy Prime Minister John Anderson had to say about the issue of civility in debating social, political and religious issues.

Secularisation of society has hijacked public debate, demonising and ridiculing any point of view that conflicts with popular opinion.  The freedom of speech we celebrate as a democratic nation and the foundations of belief for people of faith are systematically being eroded by the facade of tolerance and equality.   This is highlighted by a form of hypocrisy emerging from a secular worldview that defends diversity of opinion and lifestyle on one hand, while on the other hand attacking and labeling a biblical worldview as bigotry.  The paradox of the current social and political climate is that it has traded civil dialogue for hostile debate, contradicting the values it seeks to defend.

This critique of the impact of secularisation on civil dialogue, however, must be balanced with the acknowledgement that the same hostility and hypocrisy experienced by a biblical worldview today has historically been inflicted upon society by dogmatic religious views.

What is really needed today is a return to open respectful dialogue by exchanging hostility for civility and embracing a genuine appreciation for diversity of thought that contributes to healthy discussion.  

As a person who holds a strong biblical worldview, it is ironic that I agree with Voltaire's philosophy, "I may disagree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  Well, I may not literally defend to the death.  However, I have learned to value and engage in dialogue that welcomes a diverse range of social and religious views without feeling the need to demean or belittle those with whom I would disagree, and yet still maintain my faith convictions.  In my current role as a Salvation Army Officer where this desire for civility is played out daily, I am in dialogue with people from other faiths, engage with community leaders who hold contrasting social views and provide pastoral support to those who don't share my moral and ethical convictions.  The impact of this civil dialogue is strong diverse relationships that provide the foundation for healthy interaction between church and community.

Maybe if society was less concerned with "popular applause" and more prepared to embrace John Anderson's call for "civilized debate where we debate the issues" and not "demonise the person who puts the idea on the table" we would have some hope of addressing the complex issues facing our nation.