Political Conditions Part 2

The second part in my research of political conditions really focused on Australian discontent and divisions over the support in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. These opposing views led to a string of political consequences. Its crazy how one issue, granted a large issue, can cause so many political changes.

Like the United States, a huge point in recent Australian debate has been on the war on terrorism. When the 9/11 attacks occure in the United States Prime Minister Howard was in office.  After the attacks the Prime Minister took a strong role in the fight against terrorism sending as many as 2,000 Australian troops over seas. Then in 2002 there was terrorist attack at a nightclub in Bali leaving 90 Australians dead. This terrorist attack caused the Prime Minister  to react in much the way that the U.S. president reacted. Soon after the attack Howard took “pre-emptive strikes” against terrorist groups in Asia. Many Asian communities were shocked because they too lost many citizens and they couldn’t believe that Australia was taking on such an aggressive policy. Later it was reviled that the Prime Minister had received warnings against the Bali attack months before. This could answer the question as to why the Prime minister was so aggressive.

            By 2003 many Australians began to question Prime Minister’s tactics in handling the Iraq crisis. Australia’s parliament then launched an inquiry into Australia’s participation into the war and claimed that Australia was pressured to participate by getting false information. Once the 2004 elections started there were political talks about removing Australian troops from Iraq. It was at this time that the U.S. began to openly criticize Australia, causing mass opposition to the United States. Labor Party President Carmen Lawrence stated “the U.S. was inserting itself into Australian politics to propel the election of Prime Minister Howard, and Australians would not like to be told how to vote.” Up until the election Prime Minister Howard vowed to continue participation despite the growing opposition.

            In October 2004, thousands of citizens attended an anti-war protest in the streets of Australia.

In the elections of 2007, the Australian’s discontent would finally be known with Prime Minister Howard running against Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd’s initiatives were very different from Howards, he wanted to enact reforms in healthcare, employment, education, and he promised to withdraw Australian troops. Once the ballots were in it was clear that Kevin Rudd had a clear majority, which demonstrates how the people's discontent with Iraq related to how they voted. And as promised, he withdrew all troops causing many changes in the foreign relations between Australia and the U.S. Another thing the Rudd did that many other Prime Ministers did not do was having the government publically apologize for the ill treatment of Australia’s indigenous population. He also ended the policy of asylum seekers in detention centers. In all, Rudd moved toward issues that were very strong within the population.

            Although these policies appealed to the people, in June 2010 the Australia’s ruling Labor party, along with a leadership vote, ousted Prime Minister Rudd, who was replaced by Julia Gillard, the first female Prime Minister in Australia.

This secondary part of the article really made me happy because it demonstrates how much power the people can have in a liberal democracy. Participation and voting are vital to democracies such as Australia because it forces the government to carry out the wishes of the people.