Australian Federal Election 2016

[Reiqua]

In light of the turmoil of global politics recently, Australian politics has been very much in the shade - even in the lead up to our own federal election today!

But for the interest of those who are curious about global politics, I thought I'd make a few remarks on the state of politics in Australia.

The first thing you need to understand is that voting is compulsory in Australia, which means that even if you don't have an opinion, you still have to leave the comfort of your home to go and vote.
An important side effect of this is the "Democracy Sausage". Most schools and other voting places put on a barbecue so that everyone can enjoy their Democracy Sausage after voting.
There's even a map with real time data on which polling places have barbecues and which have run out so that you can avoid the disappointment of having to vote without a sausage to cheer you up at the end.

Now I personally haven't noticed much in the news in the lead up to our elections this year. But this morning Bill Shorten, leader of the Australian Labor Party, made big news by biting into his democracy sausage from the side, rather than tackling it from the end, as any normal person would.
This, of course, raised serious questions about his Australianness, since enjoying sausage sizzles is an important part of Australian culture. Many have questioned his familiarity with this Australian custom and some have cast aspersions on his suitability to be prime minister.
For full details, see this, this and this article.

At time of writing, votes are still being counted and it is too close as yet to make a call on which way the vote will fall. It remains to be seen if Shorten's enormous gaffe this morning has swung the public mood against him enough to influence the result of this election.

What do you think? How important is it for a political candidate to be au fait with their country's cultural norms?

[Yoyti]

I think this is a very strong statement for Shorten to make. Sausage-eating is such a controversial issue that it's difficult to talk about it without devolving into a shouting match. But while I cannot defend Shorten's eating a sausage from the side -- I find such an action, of course, abhorrent -- I must admire his commitment to his position. He isn't letting the majority of sausage-eaters affect his campaign, and that's going to speak to people who are tired of politicians who pander to one side of the partisan sausage-sandwich divide. Were I Australian, I couldn't vote for someone who differs from me so strongly on such an issue, but I respect how he tackled it head-on -- so to speak.

I do believe this is what Dr. Seuss was warning us about in his literary classic, The Butter Battle Book.

[Moni]

I believe that the controversy over the sausage-eating is just another sign that Australia's society is still afraid of making great, bold leaps into the path of the future. Australia should celebrate its diversity of all the different ways its citizenry can eat hot dogs why don't you call them hot dogs sausages. Diversity does not make a country weaker, it makes it stronger, and all the different backgrounds on eating sausages can help inform policies regarding sausage-eating.

Those who have problems with the sausage-eating are really just foodaphobes who are the epitome of the problem in Australia. They can go back and eat Trump steaks.

[Deleted]

We all need to take a step back and consider Shorten's actions within a far wider context, beyond the here and now of sausages, hot dogs, all that jazz. Be it 2016 Australia, 1789 France, or 404 BC Athens, man is time after time confronted with upheavals which, regardless of individual, temporal preferences, proceed beyond his control--even if he initiates them, for what is an action, if not a diminished representation of the underlying idea? Some of us are content to speak of partisan politics on the smallest scale, perhaps acknowledge the recurring theme of worldwide assaults on free thought. The latter appears commendable, but falls short of addressing the nature--dare I say, the form--of this unconventional sausage consumption.

Let's consider the words of the Ancients. In Plato's Republic, Socrates encounters young gentlemen-turned-interlocutors on the docks of the Piraeus. This sparks a far-reaching debate on justice, truth, education, beauty, and the soul.¹ What is the purpose of the state? How far can and should education go in building the ideal soul, which itself is the building block for the ideal state?

The early interlocutors, Cephalus and Thrasymachus, present ideas old and new that run counter to the Socratic conceptions of justice. Cephalus claims that justice amounts to giving what is owed, yet this hardly amounts to an effective universal. As Socrates points out, you wouldn't give a weapon to a friend who will use it to hurt someone or himself--even if that weapon belongs to him, even if one could claim that you are depriving him of property. Nor would you give a sausage to a politician who will use it to damage his or his country's international standing. After Socrates corners him in the argument, the interlocutor leaves to sacrifice sausages to the gods on high. (Contrast this with the aggressive Thrasymachus, who claims that justice as a concept works in the interest of the stronger--and moreover, it is advantageous and therefore just to be selfish, forceful, and dishonest à la Machiavelli.)

Yet this is beside the point, which I shall address in a later post.

Footnotes

¹Some might be tempted to draw parallels with Plato's Symposium, which discusses the nature of love, beauty, and booze. As under-examined as that may be, it belongs in a separate article.

[Kyn]

I'm curious — how do vegetarian Aussies cope with this custom? Are vegetarian options provided, or do those with alternative dietary preferences have to go without this taste of democracy?

[Reiqua]

@natthewriter - I think you raise some very interesting points. Shorten may indeed have been making a much broader statement about human nature and the concepts of justice and the state. Yet, if he was doing so, I think he seriously misread the public mood, and his actions came at a most inopportune time.

In the wake of Brexit, and in the lead-up to still more uncertain times in the impending US election, the Australian populace are wholeheartedly sick of considering anything on a scale broader than local. Although you rail against the narrow-mindedness of those who discuss "partisan politics on the smallest scale", this is exactly what the people of Australia seek refuge in during these troubled times.

Shorten's actions may have been admirable in his self-sacrificial bid to encourage the people to raise themselves above the mundane and engage with tides of thought which they have hitherto spurned. In the field of philosophy, he is to be commended as a pioneer, however as a politician, he can be regarded as an unequivocal failure.

Now, however, I shall turn to address some of the allegations that Moni has leveled at the reaction of the Australian populace.

Jul 2, 2016 10:15:01 GMT -5 Moni said:

I believe that the controversy over the sausage-eating is just another sign that Australia's society is still afraid of making great, bold leaps into the path of the future. Australia should celebrate its diversity of all the different ways its citizenry can eat hot dogs why don't you call them hot dogs sausages. Diversity does not make a country weaker, it makes it stronger, and all the different backgrounds on eating sausages can help inform policies regarding sausage-eating.

Those who have problems with the sausage-eating are really just foodaphobes who are the epitome of the problem in Australia. They can go back and eat Trump steaks.

In order to properly examine this claim, I think we first need to understand the status of Australian gastronomy. Australia is a very multicultural society, which embraces a diverse variety of culinary traditions, and a variety of methods of eating. This is clearly reflected in the way in which Australians have embraced the use of chopsticks and other implements from around the globe. On some scores, however, a culinary tradition is regarded as so fundamentally Australian that flaunting it is considered unpatriotic in the extreme. The eating of a Democracy Sausage is one such activity.

Parenthetically, I will here pause to explain the delineation of hot dogs and sausage sizzles in Australia. There are two key differences between hot dogs and sausages:
First and foremost, there is a fundamental difference in the meat used. A hot dog makes use of a frankfurter, while a sausage sizzle uses a "beef" sausage.
The second important distinction to be made is in the bread. A hot dog is consumed on a hot dog roll which, in line with the American tradition of adding sugar to almost every food substance, is sweetened. An Australian sausage sizzle, however, is consumed on regular, unsweetened bread. This bread may be in the form of a roll (as in the case of Shorten's infamous Democracy Sausage) but can also be a slice of regular white bread.
Although these two are the primary distinctions between hot dogs and sausage sizzles, there are others. Choice of condiments is a significant one. While it is appropriate to put mustard on a hot dog, Australians choose between barbecue sauce and tomato sauce (not ketchup) for their Democracy Sausage. Additionally, it is acceptable to consume barbecued onion with a sausage, but not with a hot dog.

Returning to the previous line of argument however, I assert that Australians have embraced diversity, but there are some scores on which we cannot afford to give ground. We cannot allow our nation to be so influenced by those around us that we lose our very identity, becoming a conglomerate of world cultures without any individuality. We must embrace our Australianness, and our sausage-eating is the very epitome of all that is Australian. As such, I join with Yoyti in taking a firm stand in opposition to Shorten on this matter. I am forced to regard Shorten's sausage consumption choices as inexcusable, and this has lost him my vote.

[Reiqua]

Jul 3, 2016 1:30:15 GMT -5 Kyn said:

I'm curious — how do vegetarian Aussies cope with this custom? Are vegetarian options provided, or do those with alternative dietary preferences have to go without this taste of democracy?

Kalnya, this depends very much on the individual polling place - some provide vegetarian alternatives, but some do not. I've spoken to many of my vegetarian friends about this topic, and most have made the choice to forgo this taste of democracy.
While the Democracy Sausage is a celebrated part of Australian culture, those who choose not to participate are not looked down upon for their personal choices. No, that derision is reserved solely for those who cut to the heart of the Australian psyche by choosing to participate in such a way that flaunts their arrogance and rejection of the established societal rules on sausage-eating.


Additionally, for those who are interested in "partisan politics on the smallest scale" the Australian people have not, as yet, received a definitive answer on the outcome of this election.
Australian is divided into 150 different electorates, and each electorate selects a politician to represent them in parliament. Their elected politician may be aligned with a major political party, or they may be independent. For any party to be able to form government, they must gain a majority of seats in the House of Representatives: 76
The two major political parties in Australia are the Liberal Party, and Australian Labor Party (Shorten is the current leader of this party). It is worth noting that in Australia, the Liberal party represent conservative views.
Currently, votes are still being counted, and seven seats remain in doubt as to whether they will fall to Liberal or Labor. It is possible at this stage that neither party will attain the magical 76 seats and be able to form government.