AS has been noted in Wednesday's media, Gough Whitlam achieved in death what he could never achieve as PM, namely parliamentary unity - at least for a day - as all sides of politics put aside their differences to record their respect for the man.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In many ways they afforded him a "legitimacy" that had generally alluded him throughout his political career.
Indeed, they focused on the qualities of the man, specifically his leadership qualities.
By Whitlam's own assessment they had plenty to draw on.
He was once asked the question (shortly after his appointment as Ambassador to UNESCO) "what qualifications he had for the job", to which he responded, with a withering look, "Young lady, neither you nor I have the time for that long an interview".
"Legitimacy" is a long sought, and these days rarely achieved or afforded, attribute in politics.
I recall Malcolm Fraser's justification for an early election in 1977, just shy of two years after the "dismissal election", was that he had never really felt "legitimate" about 1975. He wanted electoral confirmation of his standing, and he got it with a then record majority.
Politics has declined pretty much since then, less concerned about "good government", becoming much more short-term in its focus, and much more adversarial, personal, and opportunistic.
The focus now is essentially as a "game" played out to win the 24-hour media cycle, each day generally moving on to a new issue, in a new location, etc.
There is little serious focus on substantive policy development, or in encouraging or sustaining community debate.
The lowest common denominator was reached over the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd era where "legitimacy" was never afforded them, as a fundamental element of Abbott's sustained negative campaign against them on almost every issue, or event, as it unfolded.
Today, politics essentially starts with the assumption of "illegitimacy" - you may have won an election, but you don't deserve to be in government.
Bipartisanship is rare, and there is little attempt at constructive discussion and debate on key issues, with a view to better government.
Oppositions mostly just oppose, seeking to make the government's life as difficult as possible.
The process of government is dependent on winning the support, issue by issue, of the minor parties in a now quite fractured senate, where those parties and individuals are mostly struggling to establish and defend their "legitimacy".
Many in the electorate now pine for the days where politics was more a contest of ideas and ideals, rather than just a slanging match of personal abuse, character assassination, and negativity.
Where politicians were elected with a diversity of relevant skills and experience, with something of substance to contribute to the process of government, rather than a preponderance of "apparatchiks", many of whom have never had a "real job", being products of the declining and demeaning political system, where they have operated as political staffers, union officials, local councillors, and the like.
Politics, and "winning in the game of politics", has become an end in itself, not, as it should be, as a means to the end of good government.
Whatever you may have thought of the Whitlam Government, and its poor management of the process of government, Whitlam, as an individual, stood out for his intellect, charm, charisma, wit and, most importantly, his ideas, and his willingness and capacity to promote and develop those ideas.
Like it, or not, Whitlam fundamentally changed our country, and our way of thinking about ourselves.
He was a giant in this respect.
