Geoffrey Stokes

The 'Australian settlement' and Australian political thought

Arguments for reshaping political agendas invariably begin from an appraisal of past errors and achievements. Paul Kellys notion of the ‘Australian Settlement’ attempts such a task. Kelly identifies a particular ideological and institutional tradition in Australian politics that dominated much of the twentieth century and that is now deemed to have broken down. This article accepts that the notion of a Settlement provides certain insights into the evolution of Australian political thought. Nonetheless, the paper takes issue with the specific content of Kellys version of the ‘Australian Settlement’ and indicates how it may be reformulated. It argues that, to the extent that we can speak of a ‘Settlement’ in Australia, it was one reached on a wider range of key conflicts or cleavages than those to which Kelly refers.

Transnational citizenship: problems of definition, culture and democracy

There is widespread disagreement over whether transnational citizenship provides defensible extensions of, or meaningful complements to, national citizenship. A significant strand of criticism relies upon empirical arguments about political motivation and the consequences of transnationalism. This paper addresses two questions arising from empirical arguments relating to the nation state and democracy. Do the alleged cultural requirements for effective political action provide an insuperable barrier to transnational citizenship? Does transnational citizenship necessarily require a commitment to transnational democracy? I argue that these largely empirical criticisms do not succeed in casting doubt upon the normative plausibility or practical viability of transnational projects. On the first question, I point to a growing transnational political culture that serves to motivate transnational citizens. On the second question, I argue for a legitimate category of transnational citizenship that, although inspired by cosmopolitan morality, is different from it, and that does not require transnational democracy.

Critical Theories of Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of Citizenship

Deliberative democracy offers a promising extension of, and alternative to, liberal and republican theories and practices. For many advocates, the procedures of deliberative democracy provide a stronger source of political legitimacy for collective decisions than liberal or republican democracy can offer. For others, deliberative democracy can improve methods for solving political problems. Because of its procedures, it may be more likely to produce the truth about an issue, which can then be the basis of better informed decisions that may in turn, be more likely to generate political consensus.1 Another advantage of deliberative democracy is that it negates or modifies the influence of money and power in political decisionmaking. Where the values of communicative reason are applied, the force of the better argument is supposed to prevail over wealth, political influence, and the use of coercive methods such as violence and intimidation.

The Australian settlement : a rejoinder

I am grateful for the careful attention that the contributors to this symposium have given to my work. Their constructive engagement with my paper is most welcome and will no doubt stimulate further lines of inquiry in the field of Australian political thought. With a view to promoting critical debate, I would like to respond to a few of the points made and in some cases integrate them into my argument. I have organised my response around four questions, two of which are prompted by Paul Kelly’s commentary on my paper. What issues are at stake in discussions of the Australian Settlement? Is the concept of an Australian Settlement, as Kelly describes it, historically accurate? What value does it have as an analytical device? There is a fourth question that can also be asked: what is the significance or political function of Kelly’s account? The concept of the Australian Settlement is important for two reasons. If the argument about a ‘Settlement’ is correct, it advances our historical understanding of the ‘founding’ political ideas of Australia. By implication, it also suggests certain criteria for evaluating Australian politics in the late twentieth century. On the first issue, a plausible concept of the Australian Settlement lays to rest the commonly held view that Australians had no distinctive political ideas or that Australian politics was driven primarily by pragmatism in which political ideas played a marginal and expedient role. On the second issue, an assessment of the value of such ideas enables us to accord different levels of significance to the actions of later governments that extend, revise or reject such ideas and their associated policies and institutions. Central to such questions is the problem of context. Kelly’s book The End of Certainty (Kelly 1992) aimed to tell ‘the story of the 1980s’. He could have approached this task, as others have, by providing a straightforward account of the events of the period. But Kelly wanted to do more and demonstrate the historical significance of the Hawke-Keating Labor governments, which he does in 16 pages at the beginning of the book. But significance only emerges out of a field or context. The wider the context, it may be contended, the more significant is a political leader, event or action. To evaluate the record of the Hawke-Keating governments against the history of the nation, for example, is to increase its importance. To evaluate it against its immediate predecessors or even against the governments since the Second World War would be to diminish its achievements. Arguably, a similar negative outcome would result from assessing it against many of the core values of social democracy. For his context, Kelly chose a number of key political ideas that became influential around federation in 1901 and that set the institutional framework for