Shouts from the desert

Since the election, there has been a debate raging in certain sections regarding whether the election result amounted to an endorsement by the Australian people of the invasion of Iraq. On the one side we have Howard supporters claiming that it is an endorsement, and on the other side we have opponents claiming it is not an endorsement.

But here is one person who is no fan of Howard saying that it does amount to an endorsement.

Those saying that it is not an endorsement point to the fact that the campaign was waged on domestic grounds, particularly by instilling fear of serious economic consequences into people who were highly vulnerable to an economic downturn - namely mortgage payers. Combining this with opinion polls showing that most people opposed (and continue to condemn) the invasion, they point out that other factors overrode their desire to condemn the war at the polling booth, and so the vote could not count as an endorsement.

But this confuses different things: what the voters intended by casting their vote, and what the consequences of casting that vote are.

Certainly many of those supporting Howard did not intend to express support for the invasion - perhaps even most. But by casting that vote in his favour, they nevertheless endorsed the invasion. They stated that this is conduct that is acceptable - that it is OK, as long as we have good economic conditions here. It may not have been intended as an endorsement, but that is the effect of it.

And therein lies the apparent conflict. While most people oppose the war, they were willing to endorse it, for a price. When you vote for a major party, you choose a package, and you can take it or leave it. You can endorse the lot, or none of it at all. If you want to endorse only a part of the package, you vote for minor parties and independents, and vote for a different party or independent in the House to the one you vote for in the Senate.

When a Government does something that seriously merits a rebuke from the electorate, the voters have one chance, and one chance only, to make that rebuke. That chance is at the very next election. If they fail to do so, the opportunity is gone.

Once we accept that the vote in October was an endorsement of the invasion, and that the chance of punishing Howard at the ballot box for it is gone, we have to realise that the invasion is dead as an election issue. That does not mean we cease to condemn it, nor that we cease to discuss it. We can still discuss and condemn it in the same way that we discuss and condemn any past wrong or atrocity of government. But we need to have a realistic view of what can be achieved by that discussion. Its value going forward is education, not political strategy.

Of course if Howard joins Bush in another illegal invasion, it will revive the broader issue for 2007.