Rudd rubs shoulders with Hu and sweet talks in Putonghua

At the Sydney APEC summit, Kevin Rudd, though not a government minister but opposition leader so that counts, presented himself very well at this international occasion. In particular to him, this is a chance not just to meet world leaders but to meet a special guest of honour Hu Jintao from China because of the multiple links behind the meeting.
Rudd has good reasons to be very pleased for catching a chance to show off his Putonghua speaking skill, one that had not been overwhelmingly appreciated in Australia. As a low ranking diplomat in Beijing, Rudd could not convincingly show that language skill as a strong credit for his career back home, since not many Australians understood that and did not care by that time. In the mid 1980s, I came to Australia and met a young Australian Peter who can speak Putonghua like Beijing natives (he lived and studied in Beijing for years). Now he is somewhere in the federal government as a senior translator or official in some capacity, but in those less exciting days, he was supposed to teach the language in some local schools (hard to find) or do something totally away from using that language. Rudd had the same problems and instead he went into politics. Another way is to teach Chinese at universities, like Professor Colin Mackerras or others. As I mentioned before, Rudd once had a rare chance being interviewed by a Putonghua speaking host on a Hong Kong TV programme about WTO and international trade. He performed well, spoke with confidence, and beat the heavy accented host in Putonghua by not just a few metres. It is obvious indeed that Rudd was extremely happy to finally demonstrate that his language skill is as good as he declared, and that even native Putonghua speakers would be awed by that. That TV programme, though only shown in Hong Kong, filled a big hole in his mind, at least diminished some of his hidden regrets of learning a language most Australians pay little attention to, despite economic and business connections between China and Australia.
This time it is totally different. The APEC meeting is a many folds larger stage than that TV programme, and Rudd, becoming the opposition leader after that TV talk, steps on under international media limelight not only to present himself as a credible national leader, but also to project his image as a genuine friend of a country important to Australia. The best way to convince is none other than speaking their own language. In this case, Rudd had made preparations for decades, not as a smart politician rushing to pronounce a few simple words just for the occasion to please the guests, but as a learned near native speaker toiling at the low point of bilateral relations and then shining eventually when the time finally came. For this reason, there is little ground to mock Rudd's enthusiasm on speaking for a few minutes in Putonghua at that luncheon and at meeting with Hu; if it is a show off, then imagine how one can endure troubles and troubles and neglect to learn an obscure and remote language, try it for yourself.
Hu Jintao is obviously surprised and delighted by this nice gesture from Rudd. The impression is cast in iron, that of a genuine friend of China not just catching the current benefits in, say, mineral exports, but underwent turbulent years working and not giving up. In everywhere around the world, meeting a person not your race but speaking your language is such a moving experience that few would forget. When Hu Jintao visited Australia in the mid 1980s, he must have felt lonely, despite officially organised tours and arrangements, because at that time the Australian government did not fully recognise the vital interest in embracing China and the language in communication was of course all in English. That is why he was so happy to see my wife and me in Melbourne, getting a chance to talk and laugh as one can in such gatherings of native language speakers. It is then not surprising that, after 20 years, a major political figure in an English speaking country talking with Hu in Putonghua made such a good impression on the visiting leader. Now we can talk business.
Rudd did not upstage Howard on purpose; showing off his language skill in public after suppressing it for two decades and narrowing his own distance from Hu are the main goals. But, inevitably, this is interpreted in many ways as what it actually means to Rudd and to Australia. Some noticed that Howard was not looking very comfortable at this; it is also suggested that people around realised the difference between him and Rudd, that he hugged an old ally, Bush, as usual while Rudd embraced a new friend of strength.

Australia's experience and development issues

An extension of enquire can be made from this self-fulfilling Australian experience of a well balanced place of development. All major development issues of the world boil down to two judgements. One is the possibility and prospects of development, evolving from a poor status to a developed one, implying a catch up and narrowing of the gaps between the two clusters. This has been a vital issue to poor countries and also a thorny one to developed countries. The latter in fact had made extensive transformations from poor regions to rich ones of modern times. The challenge now is finding the path for poor ones to make it as well. What paths are plausible enough to be chosen? Are these paths merely similar to that of the West, or there can be multiple alternatives? Responses from developed countries may first cast doubts over a chance of developing countries ever reaching their current levels, and then suspect whether their own paths should be faithfully copied in the absence of viable alternatives.

It has been a casual and common happening in world history that previously weak economies emerged to rule. There is nothing exceptional that waning powers attracted fierce assaults from rising, fresh leaders. When Europe stuck in the dark medieval times, few expected them to have a great future or climb above the status of other matured cultures, on the basis of their evident backwardness, chaos, fragmentation, and hopeless stagnation. For some reasons, they rose to the challenge, cumulated wealth in a steady fashion, encroached on others’ territories persistently, and eventually secured international dominance, the British Empire as the outstanding representative. They began to realise that an uplifting of their societies and attached ideals could be achieved such easily and then proceeded to trample over other cultures they used to respect and admire immensely. This course of ascendancy gave them an unwavering sense of eternal justification of Western superiority and fostered a belief of never falling again to the level equal or below other cultures.

As they passed a plateau of development due to exhausting expansion and self-inflicted wars and mayhem, another power stepped onto the centre stage to replace old European powers, in the shape and form of the US. Those wars of little loss, pure gains brought the US with unprecedented power and influence, but short of domination, because it had to share war loots and gains with an ideological enemy. By the time that opposite power collapsed by its own self-destruction, the US got what it wanted all along. This triumph at the end of the 20^th century gave it supreme confidence over another eternal rule of its power alone in the world, including its ideologies and doctrines. European powers experienced spectacular rises and painful falls, and have vivid memories of traumas of leaning too heavily on one side and losing sight on long term goals. They also had the experience of falls, so that too sure of one’s beliefs does no good and the fate could be reversed later on. The US as the new world power has so far suffered minor setbacks and has had no valuable European experience for guidance, so people there assume their right path is right for all time and all types. It is thus understandable that the US would not admit or concede any wrongdoing or mistakes of principles.

With their past achievements and current wealth, developed countries in general see no viable alternatives to their own paths, as long as a Western entity dominates the world economy and the ranking of wealth holding. This has become an ideology, taking the path to development as a wholesale deal, all or nothing. Development of certain poor countries have strings attached, either they fit the prescriptions and are granted generous treatments, or they fail the test and are discriminated against. This uniformity request comes from a hidden fear of open competition from those non-adhering but growing countries. Restrictions on those entities become a necessity in justifying the certified right direction of development. It is likely that the issue of development today is ideologically driven and politicised. Taking away the smoke screen of the debates, a development under reasonable conditions is plausible, and market forces allow demand and growth to occur, thus spur development of a particular economy. There should be emphasis on removing restraints, barriers, and discriminations. Development is not a particularly difficult issue; only when development forms a challenge to the status quo and power balance that it becomes serious and even threatening to the leader of the pack. How this development fits in the existing rules and cause unease and even countering measures from developed countries comes to be the centre of controversy. The more difficult tasks of the WTO in recent years openly illustrate the conflicts and changes in the world economy. The issue of development, along with a catch up, thus becomes more complicated than routine economic growth.

Taking a longer view, there is no guarantee that a leading power sustains its rule and dominance for an indefinite long time without a down phase or fall. It is also feasible that development outside the power bloc will move forward as a common phenomenon, gradually re-arranging the existing order of matters.

The other judgement is the real meaning in all these development. Development signals achievement, but tradeoffs remain, between material gains and quality of life. Suppose one economy is not completely efficient or advanced, and maintains its own lifestyles, a common perception is that this is bad for people there, and they should pursue wealth in a more extreme fashion, so that their demands for a good life could be met. This view does not prove to be true, in development or in life. There should be a point of balance that economic gains match standards of living and welfare. The question of quality of life is so far primarily an issue for developed countries. The varied European and American experiences attest to a divergence in choice. Australia has maintained its European traditions and preferences, staying well short of worshipping of productivity, and thus is less likely to put in long hours of work for higher output or returns. Allocation of time is balanced between work and leisure. In addition, since human societies are merely in a very short time of existence on earth, pushing production and consumption to the limits, in order to get maximum returns at current time, will only exhaust the resources at an alarming rate and make later life more unbearable and intolerable. Current gains essentially imply future losses. This approach is affordable, but not sustainable, being particularly unfair to future generations. I short, a pursuit of development could incur multiple costs and inadvertently harm quality of life, instead of enhancing it.

The world is indeed moving and changing face fast, swiftly churning out numerous new attractions and easily breaking old norms. With all of these shocks and distractions, the question that really matters remains whether life is getting better, or just more complicated, annoying, and stressful? Fast pace unavoidably generates heightened stress, accompanied by temptation and hypes. More to the point, these induce people to confusion and disillusion of their wellbeing. No matter what happens in economic development and how many long historical periods fly past, people’s desire since the dawn of civilisation are for peaceful and tranquil life, and that will not disappear or fade in the face of certain contemporary dramatic or exciting changes.

This lasting pursuit has been carried on by generations of people who held firm beliefs of a continued betterment of human societies. Without doubt, the mixed reality of early modern time, supposed to be a new dawn in human history and breakthrough in liberation of man from shackles and restraints, proved less satisfactory and led to earnest searches of new balances in the society. Worthy trials were seriously undertaken, as shown in the establishment of New Harmony, a utopian trial site by the initiative of Robert Owen since 1824. The experiment, for the purpose of setting up a just and fair base in the world of ruthless capitalist exploitation of the working population, generated high expectations. For the lack of funding, this experiment ceased to function shortly after, but it had just long enough time to explore multiple novel social practices, in the forms of the first kindergarten, public library, public school, equal education for boys and girls, etc. The community experienced free speech, communal life, democratic mechanisms, and a rudimental classless living environment. Such pioneering work is indeed remarkable. The experiment was apparently way ahead of the contemporaries in a frontier market economy of the US, but it demonstrated the practical ways of implementing social democratic ideals. Many of those pioneering work are now common, standard institutions in Australia, especially social welfare, equality, and the spirit of fair go. A good one and half century passed for the political acceptance and faithful application of those daring trials of earlier devotees and volunteers.

From this trying process, it should be clear to all that there is no base or excuse laughing at or ridicule idealist European experiments and legacies in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, such as Owen’s, making dismissive judgement by criteria of a rational and pragmatic world these days. Those people searched hard for reaching a fair and progressive society, which should also be the primary purpose of work and administration of societies today. The important point is that, despite dazzling happenings and occurrences of this new century, they should not shake the fundamental goal of human existence, the improvement, not worsening, of quality of life and basic decency and rights, rather than temporary success or gains.

In this context, the issue of development is to be put in perspective, up against people’s real needs and desires. A development priority could easily breed killer instinct in market competition, which increases stress and disrupt essential components of life, such as work routines. The relative smoothness of Australian experience is perhaps out of their customary views of work and life, similar to western Europeans’, stopping well short of ultra competitive and lean rationales persistently in fashion in the US, those rationales dreading ultimately losing to adversaries badly. There are generally contrasting attitudes toward economic activities and business, wars to win to the Americans but ways of sustaining reasonably comfortable living conditions to the Australians. The essence and purpose of development fully illustrate their merits in the case of Australia.

In contemporary history so far, the disappointment over the US’s let down is the most striking and heart-breaking, since the country trumpeted great promises and generated incredibly high expectations. That hope quickly waned after the brutal nature of this super power and its ideologies were fully exposed in recent bloody conflicts of America’s doing. Sectoral and national interests hide behind rhetoric of moral and religious justifications for unilateralism in this virtual global village. As this once standard bearer of freedom and so-called mankind’s last hope on earth disappoints with familiar materialist calculations, extreme selfish hypocrisy, and imposing indoctrination, it makes little sense for people to hinge future hope and choice on the now widely discredited American way. Bad human characters are in full display soon after the inception of the new century, in both so-called “failed” states and the civilised super power. Attempts to reverse historical trends of progress also emerge with constant repudiation of social democratic traditions and unabashed advocacy of greed and naked self interests.

In this disheartening environment, the fair minded, non-fundamentalist, non-radical Australian mentality shows its worth and value, precious and rare in this age of extremists. It is basically not shockingly strong armed, unlike some ideologies which come out to prove them worthy of everything and prevailing over all the rest. This model is not radical either, as opposed to the revolutionary Marxism or resolute ultra conservatism. It has grown out of well developed market economies, gaining a sound economic foundation, rather than of poor and developing countries where a radical thought could provoke positive responses and cause mass social movements, in the meantime may also be quite destructive. The underdevelopment status is a crucial reason for those economies to turn to authoritarianism, because that approach solves contemporary problems and achieves certain marked development. The real hope, however, will lie in a social democratic model in examples like Australia’s, since there is a much more desirable balance of clashing social forces and ways of democratic participation while maintaining higher living standards. This model undoubtedly excludes the strict socialist doctrines of the 20^th century, but it also differs sharply from the ultra right tendencies currently prevailing in the US.

The social democratic nature of Australia is the best bet so far in the tug of war between the left and the right raged on for centuries. This tradition comes from repeated trials and corrections, in order to reach a right balance and maintain acceptable social cohesion and harmony. The Australian experience amply shows that social democratic beliefs are to be treasured, and the most likely solution is a combination of both elements, making it work under a market economy with adequate social welfare for all. This experience builds on what people have tested and already achieved. It is extraordinarily unassuming, claims no end of history or a solution to all worries, especially in regard to super wealth, but only tries to address problems in social justice and equality, involving constant adjustments. This in general demonstrates the future trend of progress, turning sideways from time to time, but keeping the principles and essence of an egalitarian society in tact.

Other peoples are attracted to the Australian life not merely by accumulated wealth, high standard living, relaxed lifestyle, or welfare benefits, but also by their appreciation that this country offers a fair chance to all citizens, an emphasis on social equality, and fair dealing with issues and problems in the society, considerations more important than being granted the right to bomb, attack, humiliate, or pressure other peoples at will. This Australian way gives people a peace of mind that this society is just, seriously guards people’s rights, and opposes unrestrained state power or extreme ideologies. The origin of this freedom and security is a lasting social democratic tradition, rather than power and influence grown out of enviable wealth. It includes specific rights to be free of fear and threat, such as fear of the authority and of destitution after retirement. Providing pension and social security is unquestionably the government’s job, never a job completely for private organisations or individuals.

Australia as a medium power is spared of the dramatic experience of rise and fall accorded to past great powers. It is steady and smooth running, only with usual economic cycles of ups and downs. This instead makes it manageable for Australia to sustain economic difficulties and problems, unlike the US which will inevitably feel very bad about losing and decline. The 2001 US tech bubble bursts, for example, gave Australia a mild shock and made tech people panicked for a while, but the scene of large numbers of bankrupt tech companies did not occur. The HIH insurance collapse represents a typical company fraud, rather than tech related rocket rise and hard fall in the US. The economy has maintained its pace fairly steadily, relying on mature business sectors and promising export for investment, consumption, and growth.

Australia needs not to fear open competition in international business. It has enormous resources and reserves under the soil for export and benefits from swings and uncertainties in international markets. Along with an increasingly acute prospect of scarcity in the world, the real value of Australian export will surely rise. Australia can also learn from others’ tested ways to compete, such as practices in outsourcing and off-shoring. These are simply techniques, and their application does not flag a change to the principal aims of economics and business: supporting and sustaining people’s wellbeing and security in life. It is not the right way to interpret what happened under globalisation as having reasons or pretence to treat employees and their welfare as a non-issue. Welfare has to be the central concern of all governments, left and right or extremely economical and ruthless. A top priority is to prevent bottom lines from being crossed.

Recent debates on social trends have got so much one-sided and right wing market fanatics got so excited that they would rather forget market failures and desperate situations of free exploitation of labour in the past. This deviation comes from Americanised globalisation and ballooning power of capital markets. The flexibility in choosing approaches and adjusting is seriously lacking under fashionable worshipping of economic rationalism and drive to success, and alternative academic thinking are not taken into account in government policies and mainstream media advocacy. It seems that there is a paucity of indigenous creative thinking, and the most productive way of formulating policy is simply imitating the fashionable celebrity models or agendas from the US.

What is fairly worrying is that the right wing conservatives under the Coalition government are losing Australia’s values and humanist touches and making people loose confidence in upholding their treasured principles. Previous Labour governments started a process of erosion through deregulation, and the Howard administration happily push that initiative to the limit, depriving more rights and benefits from the working people of Australia. And all these are justified in jargons borrowed from American right wing think tanks, typically business competitiveness and market demands. When Howard identified something un-Australian, it caused confusion as he might from his heart prefer Australia to get more American, because those Australian values are undermined and attacked right at that moment by his party and followers. Even in deregulated Australia, this government obligation for social welfare has held on, but the risk that a conservative administration may alter or shirk from that obligation looms larger. If that happens, people have to bear with more fears and curtailed security. It is for the remaining social democratic forces to salvage the progress making mission and halt the erosion of rights Australians used to take for granted in a just and egalitarian society.

This Australian experience has come to a full circle, in many respects in the course of a century. In regard to political parties, for example, they have evolved from many competing minor parties of the early times to two major parties of national governing mandates, and there have been more recent calls for giving small parties a chance in politics and administration, seemingly a rendezvous or a backtrack, but in effect a sign of renewed efforts to better respond to public demands and requests. In guiding principles, there were wide swings to the left and the right, from social welfare doctrines to more economics-oriented practices, such as deregulation, argument for figure-based productivity improvement, and welfare cuts in the name of efficiency. These recent tides are now accepted wisdoms in the Anglo-Saxon bloc including Australia. The country also proceeded forward in strategic positioning, from a colonial outpost and a despise of its Asian neighbours in the era of frontier discoveries and uncertainties to a shifted focus on East Asia and multiculturalism, and to the latest realignment of the triple relations with Europe, the US and the Asia Pacific. Among all these swings and turns, the central theme of domestic policies remains how provision of essential social welfare for citizens sustains costs with greater output, export, and added value in the economy. This is an issue more crucial and troubling to governing social democratic parties, while the parties on the right simply steer a market-driven economy on models from the US or reformed British Labour Party.

Australia’s position and future role have also run a complete circle and moved into the next course. Alfred Deakin in early years of Federation claimed for an Australia reserved entirely for white Australians only, especially for whites from Britain, to be pure blood and with same traditions, so that the country could have hope in future. This flagrantly racially based political correctness of that era has been replaced by the Commonwealth of multiculturalism today, by law, tolerance, and participation. The country is still great and remains fundamentally humane and economically sound. To some extent, certain truth in Deakin’s singular statement of vision could be easily turned around in a 21^st century context and come to indicate Australia’s extended roles in supplying necessities for the needy of the world and in preserving crucial resources and hidden wealth underground for the survival of the human race, at the very least, maintaining consumption and living standards of populations for a long period of time. Global missions or a power status notwithstanding, this designated salvation responsibility places a social democratic Australia in a more prominent position of being a rare oasis of the world.

Coming full circle in the lucky country

This heading has little to do with a previous book “Coming full circle” by my PhD supervisor Professor Eric Jones in the early 1990s. Rather than combing through complex long haul development paths in centuries of early modern history, this writing attempts to trace major turns and events of about one century of Australia and probe what really shine and what combinations of unique characteristics of this lovely country indeed bear significance in a new century of expected giant strides of human progress. At the start of the 21^st century, this is a perfect time to step back, look around, and make sense of the completion and outlook of a full circle.

The Australian experience in this circle simply illustrates that some initially conceived advantages and benefits prove more crucial after all for the welfare of future generations of this precarious world. Previous dissections of this writing serve to demonstrate those crucial characteristics of Australia, as well as long term impacts made by global trends. Similar to the wavering of a moving vehicle on road, a society is deemed under the influence of a certain guiding philosophy, or more restrictively an ideology, in a given phase of history, only to leap to another at a later phase. A chosen approach to survival and development is seen by the people in the driving seat, most likely the social elite, as a destined course to take, reaching the end of history if one gets his wishes. Inevitably, however, complex forces and relations in the society forge new perceptions and adjust focuses, edging previously treasured and cherished principles to the sideline. This ongoing process of adjusting and sublation reflect the true nature of social progress as not a single, straight line. History is primarily a collection of human activities through time and thus is supposed to be shifting and wavering this way, while selecting a set course amidst multiple choices. Otherwise, it would not have been possible for us to sense progress in the making and gain deepening understanding of the world, if rigid and sacred doctrines retain their sway forever. There would also have been little excitements and rotating scenes of rise and fall of powers based on brute force or innovation. The right direction is always sought and advocated, with continuous identifying, legitimising, and cross-checking.

In terms of modern politics, swings between the left and the right have also been a matter of course in recognised Western democratic countries. The most recent example is the switch of roles between entrenched thinking of social democratic welfare and pervasive, triumphing neo-classical economics (economic rationalism in Australia). It is worth noting how fervently social democratic countries stuck to their principles and risked loosing the so-called all important productivity contest to a more ruthlessly profit-driven US. Priorities of the moment urge actions and preferences on one side of life, to make money and get rich quick, or to maintain a desired balance in quality of life through work. The mild differences between these two breed separate political parties and groups of left and right, and command the trends forward of the world economy and politics. A more recent tide of market oriented thinking resurrected neo-classical economics in public policy domains, reversing previous mainstreams of social democratic thinking. What was widely discredited is now justified and honoured, such as greed and casual employee dismissal. To the people of this moment, the path is a certainty, and a worry of what this turn of event will be judged or a possible occurrence of further reversions or sublation in the next phase is nowhere to be seen. Responding to immediate concerns, people and governments tend to seek available solutions and justifications of their decisions and strategies, giving little thought of aftermath and long term impact. It is precisely an opposite to these contemporary priorities that a longer cycle of events should be objectively examined and analysed.

The course of turns and shifts in Australian politics serves as a timely reminder of past experience and convictions since the date of Federation. Australia has a longer history than that of Federation, from the Aboriginal cultures to the first landing and fleet. This early history is largely omitted here for the reason that it was basically a British colonial experience and that it is from the time of Federation that Australia gained an independent identity, which loomed larger with the passing of time. Australia has endured torments and fortunes in the 20^th century and by and large coped well with challenging realities. It, above all, has not relinquished previous traditions and characteristics, which has made the country a desirable place to live.

In college years, a book about Sweden was thrust to me by a classmate as a leisure reading. I was somewhat dismissive: why not a book on much mightier countries such as the US or Russia (the Soviet Union at the time)? I realised the mistake of not reading that book more thoroughly by the time I arrived in Australia, having witnessed the first time a true Western country, not a super power, but a well run democracy and market economy, more importantly, a welfare state in good shape. Getting more grasps of this typical Western democracy in Australia, Sweden to me is obviously another oft-quoted example in par. This sense of comparable achievements even more intensified after my casual acquaintance with a Nordic student studying at the same university. In both of these examples, social democratic traditions are cherished, retained, and reinvented with vigour. Even if the Blair-style “Third Way” implies a disguised surrender to free market manipulation and has since lost some appeal and following, Australia is to carry on with remarkable social welfare on the basis of raised performance levels and improved utilisation of talents and resources within. More common grounds are shared between Australian and European practices, even after surging tendencies to imitate things American under the Coalition government. The crucial point is to keep Australia European, as it has been, rather than American, in future. This saying has nothing against the American people; rather, it refers to a preference to a less ideological choice and more balanced life.

The US could be a nice living place as Australia, giving its immense space and bountiful resources. At least the sizes of deserts there are less intimidating. That blessing has become less certain out of many of the distinctive American characteristics, such as an insuppressible urge to dominate world affairs, the self-centred idea of speaking on God’s behalf, worshipping of unparalleled military might, willingness to use force for ideological or even religious reasons, etc. The administrations’ undying zeal in pursuing its own course of actions in the world has surpassed all expectations, disregarding opinions and sentiments of others in this mistakenly labeled global village. They therefore should at least pay some attention to the thundering words in their own Hollywood production, Ben Hur, that the day Rome falls, there will be shots of freedom the world never heard before. Good or bad intentions of others notwithstanding, the indoctrinating of the American supremacy all over the world is much too overbearing.

Australia is lucky not to have that many blatant characteristics and obligations, content to be a medium power comfortably blending in with peoples around the world. Despite the usual neglect of Australian affairs in world news bulletins, this is not a story of dumb and dumber in a weird, incomprehensible place. Bill Bryson writes in his brilliant book on Australia “Down Under” about remaining historical sites, scenes and people matters, and a variety of hilarious experiences. That deviates markedly from the usual stock of country tour guides, but remains the type of writing from the perspective of a visitor on an interestingly strange land and related unique features, thus lacking certain depth and long term projection. This writing, instead, is about the running of this country and on development potential and future trends. It also offers a perspective of human activities and immediate practical problems. If this land is nurtured well, in the right way, short of negative influences from other old and more “advanced” worlds, there will be hope and light at the end of tunnel, not exclusively to Australians.

The “lucky country”, termed and described by Donald Horne, is not a theme to escape from lightly in writings on Australia. That book is certainly a somewhat depressing read when I sat down at a beachfront house in a spectacular sunny day in Melbourne. Contrasts are so sharp that words from the book seem far detached from the surrounding reality. It would be so much easier for people to believe that “lucky” here implies real happiness and enjoyment in life, rather than the whining of an extraordinary intellect. That easy Australian life is indeed real, as the outcomes of generations of work and discoveries in casual and unhurried manners. This is a life fair distance away from cutthroat market competition and unrestrained chase of wealth. With the reference of happiness index, Australia gets a high mark, regardless of indices of gross output and zillions of money notes one country possesses. This life style is truly a demonstration for those not in the league of what is to come in future and what is supposed to be the life for human beings. To the question of what kind of life is ideal and desirable, the answer is pretty much in this Australian settlement.

From Horne’s viewpoint, however, “lucky” is up for some ironic interpretations. Being called lucky implies that pure luck is not quite deserved, similar to a spoil and waste of this wonderful land by a people of ignorance, or a privileged place which cannot be forcefully taken by more intelligent peoples under current international laws. In Chinese phrases, “lucky” may refer to a situation of an illiterate, hardly handsome guy marrying the prom queen, in a sea of envious eyes of the more popular, gentlemanlike schoolmates. This ironic “lucky” is a label of low awareness of deep shortcomings, under-utilisation of human intelligence, and slack management of available resources, so its existence received a pity and was scorned by certain early writers and critics like Horne. This ironic use of the word is close to the origin of that inspiring writing, when the society in the 1960s faced confusions over future prospects, after long prosperity and certainty under conservative administrations. Achieved goals seemed making people become less productive, and inertia grew out of sheer boredom. People and the elite were just not up to the coming challenges from the 1970s on, and they were forced to think harder, break modes, and seek new directions, instead of relying solely on their entrenched being “lucky” mentality and over-generous rewards from the nature’s rich endowments.

By the time of this century, the first and original meaning of the term “lucky” is again highlighted, as a true testament to enjoyment of life the people of Australia cherish and the remarkable achievement of an egalitarian society rarely matched in this world of deepening social divide. This real meaning of lucky has the support of the proud fact of Australia, widely recognised as an extraordinary place for quality of life. Put it another way, this is an oasis of the world of troubles and disorders. The list of advantages includes output supporting high living standards, adequate welfare benefits, mostly still pristine natural environment, and convenience and security in travels and communication with other peoples. This combination is not to be lightly dismissed or disregarded, in comparison with situations in many other countries.

The lucky country label of Horne’s making has been with us for quite a long time. Its ironic interpretation is almost forgotten, especially in the time of prosperity early this century. This is not supposed to be, as the country is now at another crossroads and faces new challenges. Complacency undermines sustainability and encourages attempts to curb social justice. It is imperative that Australia seeks assured directions, out of past turns and swings, from the left to the right and back. This time it is important not to be easily influenced by outside temptation, fashionable models, strong arm propaganda, or naked interests and their persuasion. Australia’s luck lies in the right direction of future, and it will be lucky as now if managed well and with foresight. The lucky country will thus realise its true meaning, as the circle has run a full round and enters the next.

At the time of Sydney winning the right to host the 2000 Olympics in 1993, I honestly was shocked and perplexed by the news, not the least on the grounds of my country of birth or rampant trickeries during the bidding process. The chief competitor was Beijing, the capital of China. As China had undertaken bold and extensive reforms one year earlier, after Deng Xiaoping’s southern tour, the country was considered with great potential to grow into a great power in the 21^st century. The 2000 Olympics was given immense significance as an illuminating indication of future direction and hopes of the coming new century. An emerging power of China was simply more promising and convincing to the Olympics member states of its worth. Australia at the time was just out of a severe recession, and as a medium sized Western country in a far away continent it seemed to bear little sense of destiny for the new century. The final selection of Sydney over Beijing was seen in some quarters a “West wind over east wind” phenomenon by the people who harboured uneasy feelings of the political turmoil in China four years earlier. As it has become known, the Olympics committee made a correct and brilliant choice. The Sydney Olympics was an exemplar case of international Olympics movement and was successful in so many aspects. Beijing, on the other hand, has so much to learn and to improve before the city could reach the levels of success Sydney achieved, even without considering political uncertainties and nastiness.

Sports and organisational matters aside, with hindsight, the symbol of future directions is surely with Australia (not particularly Sydney). This is beyond the issues of emerging powers or potential power shift standard issues of international politics. For Australia, this is a play at another level. Australia represents an identity with fuller characters and clear signs of progress. The future of democracy, environment, economic balances, social justice, and most of all, equitable welfare for all, will be staying in this country. Ideals of social progress and economic gains in the most recent phase are demonstrable here. China, on the other hand, is bound by old world geopolitics, internal frictions and external pressures. Ideological and practical tensions will grow to a heightened level in later generations. The country is also so close to unfriendly neighbours, and relations are often fragile. It remains likely that China one day gains a respectful status and reaches a rightful influential place in the world. That kind of miracle in development does not diminish the implications of Australian experience. Australia, as a separate and full continent with developed economic, social and legal systems, has so many advantages with untold benefits and security. If the people of Australia and its political parties continue their pursuit of principles, justice, equality, fair play, and excellence with undying passion, the ideals of the human kind will not fade or evaporate. This further proves the selection of Sydney for 2000 Olympics a wise and far sighted one, ironically made by those members who actually saw more of short term benefits and convenience.

Australia has much of its potential hidden nicely and is the place for long term development almost by default. It is not perfect, and we could say far from being ideal, but the impressive progress during a short century has made Australia a true egalitarian society rarely seen in other parts of the world, not even in the all powerful US. The emphasis here is on potential, on the nearest possibility of a place for lasting hope, an oasis among many other types of tyranny, absolute power, prejudice and dictatorial ideologies. It is definitely not the figure-based growth or wealth that counts, but the combination of factors, especially social harmony and cohesion. In this regard, Australia stands as a better choice over some equally impressive but too small or less promising places.

Human nature is hard to be right and perfect, particularly in a materialised society of today. It may show a good side in good times and reveal a nasty side during down times. It is unpredictable, often accompanied by an urge of greed, which sometimes throw entire communities into chaos and carnage. A place with reasonably well behaved human nature is rare and needs to be nourished consciously and constantly. Australia is obviously a place with commendable features of human nature, not completely flawless, but undesirable tendencies are by and large prevented from surging. This is done through traditions of democracy and equality, through political will and institutional restraints, and above all, through good manners brought up during good times. Fortunes lay in long run favourable conditions, not in lures of brief achievements or wealth amassing. As this country strives to achieve a betterment of human life, it has reduced chances of abuse and conflict, deriving from bad human natures, and will remain on the right track ahead.

Competition Overdrive and the Aussie Way of Life

The concept of quality of life is increasingly being edged out by that of productivity, and the image of Australia, along with other welfare nations, swings from the favoured to the dismissed. The laidback attitude, and quality life behind it, has felt less enthusiasm. It is time to put prevailing arguments for productivity in perspective. The concept is crucial in economics, as there is apparently no other factors of production more important in generating modern day economic development. There has always been a desire in human societies to produce more at lower costs, especially in the era of industrial production with a heightened possibility of technological breakthroughs and managerial competence. For developed and developing countries alike, productivity forms the core of their prospects of economic growth, and its continued rising is commonly seen as contributing to developed countries’ excelling and dominating positions in the world economy. Developing countries followed suit.

A thrilling pursuit of ever higher productivity levels has become a reality in business and in life. Business corporations must have this goal in mind for their planning and operations. Competition has narrowed down to tiny differences in productivity among major players in the field. Countries are also put to the annual test of productivity levels, in the main category of competitiveness. These rankings often embarrass those lagged behind, being regarded as slack or not lean enough. In consequence, companies put their priority on every means to raise productivity, and this concept is enshrined as an equal to God and tax, unquestioned and faithfully adhered to.

There are in general two ways to raise productivity, to increase output per unit of input and to cut down costs per unit. For individual businesses, it is sufficiently clear and unambiguous that a reduction in costs is a gain in productivity and returns. Increased productivity may also in a broad sense improve the state of a society, lifting living standards and creating more incomes, but such a gain may adversely constitute a loss due to damages to people’s well being. Take Wal-Mart for an example. It is both one of the largest and the leanest corporations in the US and around the world. Its high productivity levels are perhaps unmatched. The company is able to achieve this on the basis of low pays and low prices. Employees generally receive low wages and minimum benefits to do long hour work, and suppliers are squeezed to accept low procurement prices, possible only because of temptation of large orders from the company. Interventions from labour unions on employee benefits are rejected outright, until recent state legislation took mild effect. All in all, the company achieves high efficiency in operations and high returns for the company and shareholders. The other side is protests and law suits from unions and unhappy employees. The contradiction in productivity is best illustrated in the practices of Wal-Mart, being hyper efficient but less genuine caring. There is nothing wrong in searching for ways to improve productivity, whether technological or managerial. The trouble is the blind pursuit of monetary gains that makes seeking higher productivity be manipulated into diminishing real benefits in life.

There is also a preference to focus on numbers in this productivity debate. GDP growth is taken seriously as a measure of strength of an economy. These days, gains from services industries constitute a major part of GDP, but many of the categories of growth are doubtful of generating real gains to the society. Law suits, for example, incur related costs to clients and the unfortunately affected, but bring incomes to legal professionals. These increases are all counted as growing components of GDP. The O.J. Simpson trial is said to have generated tens of millions of US dollars for the economy, in terms of consumption and incomes, but its sensational exposure produced little real value to the society, and a high productivity, as measured by the huge amounts of revenues and incomes created in that short period of time, has made few happy and benefited.

Productivity can be said a perpetual goal of human beings to pursue leisure while contemplating the ways of supporting the consumption of this leisure. There were Chinese gentry in imperial China and European noblemen living off rents collected from land they owned, and Roman upper class and modern plantation owners living off slave labour they bought or controlled. That kind of leisure displays class gaps and represents cheap and cruel ways of utilising resources for leisure. Technological advances since early industrial periods have changed people’s life dramatically, substituting forced labour with employees for work pays, a more humane way of exchange in the market. The trouble is that modern industrial manufacturing demands tight organisation and cost effective operations. Efficiency is totally against slack and leisure. Concerns over output and profit far outweigh concerns over treatment of employees and their want of leisure time. Since the whole workforce is tradable on the market, living standards and well being of employees are crucial issues to a majority of the people in a country, blue, white or golden collars. Only with continued government intervention and pressure from external groups, acceptable levels of work conditions and after work time are protected and guaranteed, at least by laws.

The contradiction between efficiency and employees’ well being has existed all along, with some sectors in the society pushing for an emphasis on either of them when opportunity arises. In more recent times, the voice for efficiency, in other words, productivity, has grown louder, citing worldwide competition and cutthroat business survival. It is also a way to repudiate certain previous forms of overprotection of the labour force, slack in work and long leisure time, such as paid holidays. The ominous bottom line is whether staying in operation with extra workload or closing down the business. Remarkable technological advances have not lessened this dire pressure on productivity drive. To be competent and leading, one must insert more effort and input. For this reason, stress is getting common in industries, especially for those in high risk, high turnover sectors, such as finance and IT. Modern day gentry live off intellectual property rights and the right to collect charges or tariffs on consumers. They traded overworked schedules at present for later year comfortable life styles. The point is that all these effort, drive and urge generated a trend totally opposed to the meaning of life or the essence of progress. They seldom make the working people enjoy their benefits adequately, having more leisure through shorter endurance of toil. Pace of work has been quickened dramatically, instead of slowing, in many ways laying heavy burdens on the urban work force.

A side show of drive in productivity is unambiguously in mainstream writing and reading of the late. Thanks to pressure and stress in contemporary societies, two types of writing have become extremely popular and bestselling. One is on how to make money, get rich, or reach the top in business. Following experts’ advice, they easily fill lines of stacks and shelves. The other is how to recoup after failure, release one from pressure, discover worth in oneself, cope with a lack of self-esteem, etc. The second type is sometimes called “sweet soup for thought”, supposedly psychological solutions to soothing mind and healing wounds. It apparently aims at countering the cruel reality of competition and inherent stress created by punishing paths to giant success promoted relentlessly by the first type of writing.

Under globalisation, services of many types are shifted to economies with lower costs, thanks to advanced technology in telecommunications. While this kind of outsourcing brings in huge savings, the ultimate goal of doing business is to guarantee the quality of services and consumers’ satisfaction. Judging by these criteria, shifting call centres and support centres to English speaking economies, say India, is often a bad idea, since the contact with end users is often riddled with miscommunication and resentment. In the case of Australia, difficulties arise from staff’s strong accent or from uncomfortable feelings on the part of Australian service users that they are talking to a foreigner regarding local matters and that they have lost that kind of fair dinkum Aussie connection. There is this depressing thought of being supported by far away strangers rather than your familiar local people. Any anxiety and ill-feeling in the mind of consumers is bad for business. A friend of mine was extremely upset by callers from India (a sub-branch of a certain Australia company) to advertise on coming property sales and auctions just a few blocks from where she lives. What a ridiculous setting for a marketing strategy! She steadfastly refused the offers and hugely disheartened that hapless Indian salesperson. For shopping, services or other local affairs, she would rather hear it from local people. This is a common feeling easily understood by people who live in a real world, but perhaps not so by some marketing geniuses or company bean counters.

My wife had an extremely difficult time in a phone conversation with a strong accent salesperson. The call was just to activate a purchased phone card, which took about half an hour and many rounds of “sorry, say it again”. The salesperson was not only strong accented, but also rushed things by reading straight from his task list, disregarding the fact that the customer may not be able to understand and follow his quick firing advice, especially those technical jargons. Amazingly, the in-shop sales girl offered little help, unable to key in the details for activating. One wonders whether the computer terminal in her shop was deliberately down, so that salespersons in an Indian service centre can do their job on line. In contrast, I made the same activating request a couple of years before, in a very noisy commercial arcade. I was quite unsure and panicking in following the instructions from the service centre. Fortunately, the person in charge spoke clear Aussie English and offered helpful instructions at each step, so that we finished that business quickly without a hitch. Alas, those were the pre-outsourcing days. If a second language speaker like me feel certain comfort in receiving advice and help in standard English, imagine how local Aussies long for that comfort when they are bombarded by strangers overseas in strong accents. This is not to discuss the preference of English speaking styles, but to point out that there is a real chance of failure in marketing, based on relentless pursuit of cost cutting in services industries. When local sales persons stand idle with a down computer and one has to ring a support centre thousands of miles away filled with staff of low pays, you cannot help thinking this is a purposeful action to force customers into designated routines of the service provider’s liking.

It goes down to a simpler contrast in views of productivity, to strive for profits and market domination, or for real rewards to workers of all kinds and social welfare for all. At the micro level, business success comes with stress and redundancy. At the macro level, the economy has to deal with consequences of cost-cutting, setting the priorities straight and providing needed conditions for citizens to enjoy benefits and welfare. Absolute efficiency causes problems in damaging wellbeing of workers and the environment. Competition overdrive resembles an overkill in business. Productivity is better seen as one of the concerns of enterprises, not their single purpose of existence. A conviction of productivity should not deter people from their pursuit of desired way of life.

In restructuring and re-engineering, executives unavoidably talk about cutting down waste and making an organisation leaner. Waste is supposed to be everywhere, and any capable manager can spot endless waste in business operations. Even if one makes a company run as a perfect machine, no one can claim a complete wipe out of waste. A company naturally should strive to be sufficiently lean, but its heads and culture should not be mean. There ought to be some room for tolerable unwinding and individual pace of work. After all, the Wal-Mart cut to the bone type of efficiency is not everybody’s cup of tea. The contradiction between waste reduction and employee benefits needs to be seen more from employees’ point of view, because they are bringing these benefits into their lives and to the good of the society.

On the other hand, production and supply to the full capacity is a weird form of waste, not only to the producing company, but to the society as a whole. Competitiveness often causes over-supply and glut, flooding the market to make competitors suffer or quit. Mass produced consumer goods often wag the producers by the tail, making more to earn less, encouraging more careless consumption so that they could sell more. Thus there comes bulk buy of disposable goods, a trend since the 1980s, which fits people’s busy life and becomes new ways of boosting spending, towards using affluence to get convenience in a developed society. The concept of convenience to people overwhelms the concept of environmental protection and generates massive waste of products and resources. Personal computers, for example, Used computers have become a hazard in waste, because the materials to build them are not degenerateable. Convincing arguments for productivity and efficiency have made many business and social matters worse by increasing, rather than reducing, waste in production and consumption.

A modified use of the Production Possibilities Frontier (PPF) is worth being considered in this mad world of productivity frenzy. It is crucial to highlight the essential aim of all work humans do: from the earliest time to current time, it remains the same, to enjoy leisure as much as possible beyond the survival stage. The difference is in ways and means to sustain this pursuit at different historical times. If amassing wealth is the priority of some individuals, then their emphasis is on profit which can be had by some, rather than on leisure, which all in the society deserve.

An alternative option can be illustrated by a revised PPF curve following economics principles, which shows a position an economy stands after making its choice and considering the costs of reaching the desired level within the given total production capacity. In between the two extreme possibilities of maximum output and maximum leisure, there are many combinations of choices, and a tradeoff is behind their separate choices, to give up one element to lean to the other. Under PPF, there is a point of efficiency along the curve at which the balance is well kept, and no possibility exists of an increase along one axis without causing a decrease of the other.

Apparently, Western Europe and the US differ in approaches, based on their own social customs and philosophies. By and large, that ideal point of choice is more likely to be a description of Western European purposes of doing business. US companies emphasise absolute efficiency and productivity, with their singular goals of becoming the number one in whatever business sectors or markets. Away from this ruthless mentality, Western European countries take business gains as one way to improve their living standards, and social and personal welfare stay high on their agenda. They pay greater attention to their entitled social benefits and guaranteed state assistance. From this prevailing preference, they keep shorter working weeks, minimum wages, company-paid holidays, and overtime pays, and governments and unions manage to prevent welfare erosion and unfair dismissals of employees. During a leisured tour of Europe years earlier, the coach driver casually mentioned to us Asian tourists that even government employees went off for holidays in country sites or nearby beach to enjoy that lovely July sun and fun. As a result, Western European economies have had relatively lower productivity levels and are said to be less efficient in business operations than their US counterparts, as concluded by economists studying recent decades of economic growth, but their satisfaction level and quality of life are certainly not affected by those seemingly unimpressive statistics.

Leisured life style and consciousness of welfare in Western European countries usually ignore competition and pressure from outside. Productivity is seen as a means to improve life quality, rather then the end goal of life. A slower growth in certain periods of time is thus tolerable. This is similar to the life styles in China before the Opium Wars and in many other pre-modern societies, which came to subject to Western colonialism. Life by the standards of pre-colonial times seemed reasonably acceptable, and there was less want for marked improvement, unlike pent-up craving from those eager colonising Westerners. History seems to have repeated itself in mysterious ways. Once an industrialised country could afford certain luxuries or spend beyond necessities, it is time to establish a welfare state, so that people in the society can enjoy fuller benefits coming from working under new social structures. There is then an entrenched inclination to maintain living standards and quality of life, even at the cost of some lost business opportunities. As competition from outside pushes and urges, this life style may come under certain threat due to its lax and slack. Time goes by, but the ultimate goal of human societies, the pursuit of life quality, has never been diminished. That goal is meaningful to all kinds of people, undiscriminating. No one is the supreme judge in this context on what other societies may or may not live in a certain way, or should one society change due to emerging admiration there of another model or to pressure from a blanket competition in raising productivity. The PPF choice of Western European societies is thus more commendable.

Australia blends nicely in this picture. Its well maintained balance between productivity drive and quality of life has come from abundant opportunities and resources, but ultimately a way of thinking that put the priority right, the people in the centre of things. Its egalitarianism cuts down the shine of the top layers, while adequate and fair welfare make it affordable for ordinary citizens to enjoy much leisure as they can. It is again the rationale of working for the joy of living that works here.

The “Third Way” and other alternatives

To escape the tyranny of that American combination of unilateralism and hegemony these days is not easy. There is shrinking room for choice in this world of rejuvenated conservatism and inclination to uniformity. As the number one democracy and power leads that way, what responses would other developed economies with strong left wing and welfare traditions make, including Australia? Are they courageous and sensible enough to uphold their moderate approaches and ignore the dreadful choices offered by their ambition-driven leader? How to maintain a progressive nature of democracy in tact while not being subdued and bullied around by conservatives, especially when that political section took command in US politics? A simple, safe, and cost-effective option is apparently jumping on the bandwagon of American steering
and riding along as deputies.

Beyond that short-term pragmatist plan, there have always been movements of strength seeking alternatives before the unilateralism flexed its muscle on the back of September 11 tragedy. Many Western democracies have endeavored to negotiate a path not leaning towards one of the two extremes. The “Third Way”, standing between socialist left and capitalist right, also emerged strongly from the late 1990s. Socialist ideals per se now dread many who believe in individual rights rather than collective rights, in freedom of many categories rather than strict controls on movements and thinking, and in fair exchange rather than designated allocations and fixed patterns in life and business. A functioning market and property rights are the essence of this belief. Socialism, in particular those of Russian origins, is outright rigid and inhumane to these new believers. Orthodox practices of socialism in developing countries fared even worse, unraveling under the combined weight of under-development and ideological extremity.

On the other hand, social equality believers in developed democracies are equally disgusted by naked self interest, wanton waste and manipulation of markets, frauds, lost morals of human beings, and visible social inequality in a capitalist setting. They are torn by the two opposite tendencies. In reality, they incline to favour capitalism and the market, the two engines of industries sustaining growth and comfortable life of modern day. In principle, they understand that those are far from perfect for genuine social cohesion and equality. Open and blind faith on socialism has diminished after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and undertaking rigid socialist tasks at this phase of history exposes certain irrationality. On the other hand, the weakness of true type of capitalism has demonstrated themselves even more clearly in wealth distribution and super riches in the hands of a few. Regular cycles of economic growth bring recessions and inflations periodically and cause untold sufferings to working people and investors. Between these two fundamentalist ideologies, an alternative, or third way, must be found to combine competition and distribution, and to best balance the triangular relations between individuals the market and government.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, these middle-roaders had to find a way for their genuine beliefs to sustain the overwhelming triumphalism of the US and loud calls to worship the free market. Leaders of this new movement gained some progress in political arena. The Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK has won consecutive elections since the late 1990s after a long spell of Conservative governments. He, the former US President Bill Clinton, and German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder jointly proposed the “Third Way” and put their names to the launching of this cause. These leaders seek progressive policies to find the right mix of individual rights and responsibilities, encouraging people to sign a new contract between individuals and the state. Meanwhile, both freedom for all and equal opportunity are not to be marginalised. This recent cause by and large resembles numerous past initiatives, such as the surge of European socialist parties before WWI, the New Deal, and the Great Society, the latter two being Democrats’ missions. Sections of the Western world always try to find a way to reduce labour toil and toll of suffering brought out by the capitalists ruthlessly pursuing profits. Tony Blair’s “New Labour” considerably narrowed the gap between the two sides and mitigated problems arising from clashes of interests between the radicals.

The “Third Way” is in nature and form a centre-left positioning, which works well in those developed economies like Australia with sufficient public wealth but without the heavy overseas obligations and sacred missions of a super power. The top concern is the welfare of all citizens. As such, social security and safety nets are very much the priorities of the government of the day. I was quite amazed in my early years in Australia by the fact that the Health or Education Minister was a key figure in a political party, either Labour or Liberal, and is a position taken by senior frontbenchers or those trusted by the incumbent Prime Minister. At state level, the situation stays the same, with these positions being at the top of cabinet posts under the Premier. When Bob Carr voluntarily resigned from his post of Premier of NSW, after ten years of service, he was succeeded by the then Health Minister Morris Iemma. It took me a long while to get used to this arrangement and priority setting. In my previous understanding, in China or of the US, other appointments, especially foreign affairs, defense, or finance, usually squeeze the health or education portfolio out to the bottom of the list. In Australia, by the way, the portfolio of Defense implies limited promise and has very limited influence on the electorate. This political tradition has been maintained in many developed economies since the end of WWII and fits well with the usual descriptions of them as welfare states.

The Third Way altered to some extent this traditional emphasis on social welfare and introduced competition and deregulation. These were done partly as a compromise to economic reality (budget constraints) and the mounting urge of the right, which accused the state for taking on so many responsibilities that hurt overall productivity and efficiency in an economy. Many state run enterprises and organisations were privatised, sold to institutional and private investors, such as the incremental sales of Australia Telecom (now called Telstra). This realigned stand looks more of a middle way, or even right leaning, so why it is called centre left? Those leaders with life experience of a free market economy hold lower confidence in a properly running of the market, than do those newly coming in from former socialist or collective societies, such as the new German Chancellor Mrs. Angela Merkel, after Shroeder’s departure. In government or in opposition, political parties in these developed economies have witnessed repeated economic fluctuations and constantly agonised over correct policy responses to each of those unwanted crises. In particular, they have doubts over equal and fair distribution under a self-governing market, which may affect the welfare of the population and therefore of their voters. As a result, despite the scheduled tasks undertaken to enhance efficiency and market competition, the openly declared goals are filled with flavours of the left, though not the old left. A centre stand could appeal and appease both the left and the right. This policy formula worked some wonders for a while, especially in the UK under Tony Blair’s New Labour government, with growth, jobs and low inflation in a more open market. Economic performance under Bill Clinton in the US attests to the same rationale of balance and competition.

Unfortunately, the credibility of Tony Blair in leading the Third Way movement further was shattered by his ardent support for the war on Iraq before and after 2003, waged slyly by the ultra conservative right in the US. Tony Blair’s inclination towards the calling and embracing of neo-conservatives has been exposed openly, which brought him with intense domestic unpopularity. ­People wondered loudly why a declared left politician immersed in a sea of conservatives and came out smiling broadly. Even if he is cleared of being seen as an undercover conservative, his speeches and actions regarding the war resemble uncannily those by the so-called compassionate conservatives. Despite the fact he did win the third term amidst strong nationwide anti-war sentiments, primarily based on party line and satisfactory economic performance so far in the UK, he is unable to represent that movement any more. This indicates the hopeless predicament the Third Way leaders have got themselves into, being truly believing and earnestly practicing social democratic ideas while being shredded into pieces by the more determined and assertive conservative right, at a time when some precarious situation put national interests and the Western alliance on the line. They are unable to bear the pressure from being subject to constant denunciations from right wingers and from the towering might of the US government as the base camp of conservatives. In the end, they could not effectively repudiate the charges of treason and being unpatriotic laid against them in the name of God, weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of conservatives at will. Again, they plainly cannot behave more conservative than ultra conservatives, no matter how hard they pledge loyalty and allegiance. The Third Way leaders as open and enlightened as Tony Blair and Bill Clinton eventually traded their beliefs and good intentions for answering a higher calling, the Western alliance and its undisputed righteousness. If liberty or equality is to be curbed for a cause to purify the world, so be it.

What is to be the course for the Third Way? It is on the way out. The sweeping advance of American unilateralism implies a shrinking of choices from three to two and thus announces the death of the Third Way. Currently, the WW factor is in firm command. The main problem for these centre left parties is to prove to the electorate their capability of making economically viable decisions while delivering social equality, to balance productivity and welfare, wealth generation and distribution. Once they accepted arguments for competition and productivity over social responsibility, they painted themselves into a corner and would eventually agree with conservatives on most issues, from rights, employment, foreign investment, to environment, the whole package of neo-liberal line. Military participation is already on the table, for the sake of the Western alliance. The economy under this guide will move steadily towards the US line and mode. In addition, hegemony and unilateralism deem the Third Way unnecessary and pointless, highlighting the futility of searching for the middle, non-aligned way. Diversity and deviation thus attract suspicion and even wrath of the reigning superpower. The third way proponents will find it hard to survive and stick to their conviction under these worsened conditions.

The parallel processes in the UK and Australia serve as a proof to this point of futility. British New Labour won election in 1996, exactly the year Australian Labour lost to the conservative Coalition. The two election victories are nearly identical landslides. British New Labour and Australian Liberal Party have more in common, in beating demoralised opponents, winning re-elections, and staying in power despite mounting discontents. Their economic and political policies are close enough to separate. They both heartily undertook market liberalisation and reduction of state functions, and they are both strong lone allies of the US in the Iraq war, betting their political fortunes on that military venture. But they are exactly opposites in politics and party traditions. Tony Blair officially represents the ideals John Howard and Bush junior would ultimately feel uncomfortable with, to say the least. This indicates that a realigned centre left party, in the stream of the Third Way, has moved closer to the territory of right wing and taken up handy remedies from behind the opposite camp in politics. The two parties share economic rationalism and edge to the centre of politics for image building, with slight difference only in posture. At this stage, the Third Way has completely lost its purpose. The British New Labour shows little difference from conservative Australian Liberal, in terms of policy implementation. It is very unlucky for Australian Labour to loose office at a time when their British counterparts just grabbed power, but it would be ironic if Labour governed like Liberal in the past decade and lost their credentials in the Third Way, due to the Iraq war. Unlike the British party, Australian Labour party in opposition is clean of this war baggage.

With the fading and dethroning of the Third Way, especially Tony Blair’s tarnished reputation and uncertainty of the new Brown administration's directions, social democratic parties feel some urgency in searching for wider alternatives. Their ready acceptance of neo-liberal economic rationalism raised productivity levels as expected, but their cause is undermined and troubled by mounting social tension and exposed market deficiencies. Furthermore, the stance in the face of American unilateralism may make or break them, as an increasingly impatient and intolerant US threatens deprivation of security for development and creates certain disadvantages to those forces opposing conformity. Time has shifted one more time back to a phase of expanded searching and exploring, as that in early post Cold War years. The 2006 Italian election illustrates economic and political trend drift from right to left, then back some distance to the centre, and people feel a profound uncertainty of their directions and of ensuing consequences, as the Damocles sword of American hegemony hangs deadly overhead.

The worthiness of Australia as a place of alternative trials in this world partly hinges on its links with the “Third Way” movement. A wide recognition exists in Australia of an ongoing tradition of Western European pattern deviating from an American mainstream. Australia could be a likely candidate for reviving true-form social democratic traditions, with its more fair minded mentality within the population and resources bumper enough to sustain the costs of social equality for a long time. Australia can also be one of the last bastions for sane human beings and behaviours in this maddening world of ruthless expansion of ideologies and greed. Australia has something the UK would desire, the latter being too close to Europe and the United States and has the unavoidable shortcomings of a medium island country. Even a confessed left leader as Tony Blair is trapped in an eternal bond with the interests and agendas of the US. Strategic positioning and concerns offer Australia some security that it would be lightly affected by adverse forces in the course of exploring alternatives and undertaking progressive experiments. Its neutrality, independence, and geographical detachment ultimately guarantee to sustain a progressing nation of egalitarianism and fairness.

In regard to current politics, it may sound odd to name Australia as a preferred choice to a number of European countries with similar potentials, since the Coalition government under John Howard is the second most ardent supporter of the Bush administration on almost everything, after the UK. This government is also not shy of being regarded as the US’s deputy sheriff in the Asia Pacific region. Indeed, the Liberal Party is moving closer to the full embrace of the staunch conservative right in the United States. They are more comfortable joining hands and back patting with the Bush administration than Tony Blair ever is.

The point to be made here is that Australia is not moving towards the direction US conservatives pointed to at a fast pace. On the contrary, the tug of war reveals strong traction of social democratic traditions in this country. There is little possibility that conservatives don the cap of being unpatriotic on their opponents, the way their American counterparts cowed the public and politicians over there. There are strong anti-war, anti-hegemony sentiments, and there are even stronger wills to keep Australia a fair and equal society on the earth of this planet. The consecutive wins by the Liberal Party, especially the one after the war in Iraq, seems to have endorsed the government’s war option and tough right wing policies. They instead demonstrate more of the background of an improving, at least not faltering, economy and standards of living. This has come from decade old reforms and deregulation under Labour governments. Released energy and momentum under those deregulations have just added to the growth, and the so-called old economy of Australia more than made up for the losses from tech bubble bursts. If a coming economic downturn is accompanied by irrational and foolish government policies, the result would be hard to predict. Under a general atmosphere of virtual coercion internationally, the strong belief of equality and a more liberal, not Liberal, mentality prevailing in Australia is so refreshing and shedding some light of hope. A common sanity in judgement is reassuring. It is hoped that this Australian fairness is not going to be eroded by new fashion politicking and blatant cockiness borrowed from afar.

In addition, Australia has no world obligations and will to enforce those obligations on others, as does the US. Fair minded Australians generally dislike forced intervention and intrusion of many kinds, and are keen to seek resolutions through international organisations, which are viewed by conservative Americans with world visions and grand ambitions as obstacles to certain causes deemed righteous. Judging by Australians’ enthusiasm and preference for international forums, the disgusted unilateralism has few takers. This leads Australia to distance itself from American world agendas, and accordingly seek alternative approaches in domestic affairs, which are not sufficiently conservative by American standards.

Based on these deep-rooted divergences from an American way, Australia stands out as a rare choice for carrying on the post Third Way course of truth rediscovery and alternative seeking. It would be more applicable if Labour bounced back and forced the Coalition to a retreat. Even this scenario depends heavily on electorate’s mood and election results, Labour can remain to be a positive force in encouraging progressive thinking and countering conservative surges. The Coalition itself has divisions of policy choices, not totally committed to ultra conservatives, despite party lines and disciplines. Social welfare in this country will stay in place if economic conditions allow and public acceptance persists. Pushing too hard on conservative agendas and formulas turns out to be unwise and undesirable. The so-called Kennett revolution in Victoria provides an excellent reference point here. Given overall environment of tolerance and fairness, Australia is a place for more enlightened social experiment, countering unilateralism, and for a welfare state to improve the state of functioning.

The 21^st century so far represents an anti-climax, an expected highlight of human progress severely subdued by aggressions and reckless policies under unilateralism. Expansionist strategies and tactics are now termed in fashionable jargons such as the great game or global war on terror. Subsequently, the hopes of people for a more promising century were dashed quite early in the first decade, a situation not entirely different from the mood and scenes of the early 20^th century. It is utterly disastrous for peoples in the so-called global village to suffer multiple let downs in a way eerily similar to the experience of the last century. Social democratic forces are supposed to hold the line against erosion of rights and deterioration of welfare. They have found it demanding and felt inadequate to counter conservative lines of efficiency and larger returns in a globalising world. It is thus vital and imperative that the search for alternatives continues, even after the Third Way debacle. Among less suppressive and draconian places, Australia remains a hopefully viable choice in an overall assessment, clearly in sharp contrast to the origin of those spectacular let downs.