Political Disinterest of the Younger Generation in Australia
The recent Australian federal election in July saw a ninety-five percent participation rate, three percent higher than in the previous election. With such a high percentage of voters, one would assume most Australians have a high sense of civic duty. Much of the younger generation, however, appears to lack political interest. In 2013, only around 50 percent of eighteen year olds participated in the federal election1. The article I chose, “Generations: why you should all give a political damn” by Mark Triffitt, was published almost a month before this year’s election in the hopes of encouraging more young voters to exercise their constitutional right. Even though they make up a significant …show more content…
John Hirst discusses these ideas in his piece, “Why is Australia not a Republic?” In the article, Hirst explains that when the British separated themselves from Australia, Australians wanted to create their own identity. One of the ways this was proposed to happen was to change the system of government. While politicians at the time wanted to make the country a republic, most of the public already thought of the country as a democracy. In the end, the Australian government became a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, with which neither group was happy, as it closely resembled the British government. Triffitt, who effuses the opinions of the “common” Australian, clearly supports the idea of Australia as a democracy, writing, “Why aren’t we calling for our democracy…” He implies that the people do not have the government they want; that what “Australia” truly wants is a democracy. Moreover, he claims, “But bad politics succeeds because good people do not engage, or do not vote.”4 Triffitt, like much of the rest of the public, distrusts the politicians and the political system currently in place5. He instills this belief that by simply engaging in politics, the “good” people of Australia can drive out “bad politics”, when in reality, the causes of a corrupt political system are a bit more …show more content…
This idea is discussed more in depth in Scott Arthurson’s article, “Stop calling bigots bogans”, where he explains that a myth of inclusive nationalism and acceptance perpetuates throughout Australia. Australians, he argues, like to think of themselves of accepting of all, but in actuality, exclusions are constantly made. This illusion is found in Triffit’s article as well, as he claims throughout to be speaking for all of Australia, but then writes that the politicians in government are “…a bunch of mainly middle-aged, white men locking horns over dead ideologies”4. Were these men considered part of the Australians that Triffitt represents before they were involved in politics? They are legally Australian citizens, and yet they are ostracized with this statement. Arthurson’s piece would argue that this is a way of promoting an idea of acceptance, while still finding a scapegoat for a society’s
The recent Australian federal election in July saw a ninety-five percent participation rate, three percent higher than in the previous election. With such a high percentage of voters, one would assume most Australians have a high sense of civic duty. Much of the younger generation, however, appears to lack political interest. In 2013, only around 50 percent of eighteen year olds participated in the federal election1. The article I chose, “Generations: why you should all give a political damn” by Mark Triffitt, was published almost a month before this year’s election in the hopes of encouraging more young voters to exercise their constitutional right. Even though they make up a significant …show more content…
John Hirst discusses these ideas in his piece, “Why is Australia not a Republic?” In the article, Hirst explains that when the British separated themselves from Australia, Australians wanted to create their own identity. One of the ways this was proposed to happen was to change the system of government. While politicians at the time wanted to make the country a republic, most of the public already thought of the country as a democracy. In the end, the Australian government became a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, with which neither group was happy, as it closely resembled the British government. Triffitt, who effuses the opinions of the “common” Australian, clearly supports the idea of Australia as a democracy, writing, “Why aren’t we calling for our democracy…” He implies that the people do not have the government they want; that what “Australia” truly wants is a democracy. Moreover, he claims, “But bad politics succeeds because good people do not engage, or do not vote.”4 Triffitt, like much of the rest of the public, distrusts the politicians and the political system currently in place5. He instills this belief that by simply engaging in politics, the “good” people of Australia can drive out “bad politics”, when in reality, the causes of a corrupt political system are a bit more …show more content…
This idea is discussed more in depth in Scott Arthurson’s article, “Stop calling bigots bogans”, where he explains that a myth of inclusive nationalism and acceptance perpetuates throughout Australia. Australians, he argues, like to think of themselves of accepting of all, but in actuality, exclusions are constantly made. This illusion is found in Triffit’s article as well, as he claims throughout to be speaking for all of Australia, but then writes that the politicians in government are “…a bunch of mainly middle-aged, white men locking horns over dead ideologies”4. Were these men considered part of the Australians that Triffitt represents before they were involved in politics? They are legally Australian citizens, and yet they are ostracized with this statement. Arthurson’s piece would argue that this is a way of promoting an idea of acceptance, while still finding a scapegoat for a society’s