By Paul Rodan
Instead of snapshots, polls are taking on the authority of judgments.
Think for a moment about this snippet from Australian history: Robert Menzies was this country's longest-serving prime minister, yet in the aftermath of his 1949 victory (following eight years in opposition) things did not go smoothly. Had he faced the polling intensity we witness today, Menzies could have been rolled by those fearful that he was ''gone''. Instead, he went on to serve as PM until his retirement in 1966.
Kevin Rudd may well envy him. The role of polling in Rudd's demise raises important questions for the quality and nature of politics in Australia. More than ever, it seems that polls are taking on a momentum of their own and, rather than being regarded as snapshots in time, are accepted as authoritative judgments necessitating immediate responses from panicked political parties.
The two major parties have now had five leaders between them in 2½ years. Perspective, context and any sense of history are lost in the mayhem.
In isolation, those who moved against Rudd can obviously sustain a case, based on problems of a low ALP primary vote, a shrinking approval gap relative to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, a loosening in Green preferences, and worrying private polling in marginal seats.
The view that no prime minister in Rudd's position this distance from an election had ever lost, nor anyone in Abbott's ever won, was obviously viewed as less than persuasive. History is certainly bunk.
Of course, the view may have been that while victory was still possible, the installation of an apparently more popular figure (Julia Gillard) could turn possible into likely.
Left unaddressed was the uneven success rate of pre-election leadership changes, which can smack of desperation to a concerned electorate. The replacement of Bill Hayden with Bob Hawke in 1983 is an obvious exception, and it is possible that Gillard may also triumph.
On the Liberal side, the spectacle of three leaders in two years indicates a similar low threshold for toughing out the turbulence of poor polling. Given the success rate of first-up federal opposition leaders after a change of government (nil), Brendan Nelson was on the proverbial hiding to nothing, with bad polls being used to formalise the inevitable. Malcolm Turnbull's poor judgment over the Godwin Grech case helped his polls head south, and left him vulnerable to ideological opponents.
In the past 15 years, four federal party leaders (Alexander Downer, Simon Crean, Nelson and Turnbull) were ditched on the basis of bad polls without ever being allowed to face the electorate. Effectively, the poll has become as authentic a basis for judgment as an election, in a manner inconceivable in days gone by.
In the 1950s and '60s, the ALP allowed perennial losers Bert Evatt and Arthur Calwell three elections each to prove their lack of appeal, while Crean (2001-03) was denied even one go. Yet, could anyone say with certainty that Crean could have done any worse in 2004 than the erratic Mark Latham?
In each case, the working assumption is that the relevant leader is ''gone'' and that his position is not recoverable.
Lost is the notion of the election campaign as a unique test, an appeal to the ultimate jury in which public opinion can, and will, sometimes change. Opposition leader Andrew Peacock survived modest polling in 1983-84 to perform more than creditably at the 1984 election. Today, he would not have had the chance.
This phenomenon does not exist in isolation, but is related to the 24/7 news cycle, the emergence of the blogosphere and the attendant loss of time for reflection and considered judgment. It has been observed that federal politics is starting to resemble a version of Big Brother, in which hapless contestants are banished from the big house once their polls fall below a certain threshold.
Between elections, it is inevitable that one party will trail the other, likewise with leaders, and the gaps will often be substantial. If there is to be a change of leadership every time this occurs, our political system is at risk of becoming something of a joke.
It is frequently claimed that obsession with polls leads to poor public policy as governments will avoid the tough decisions that necessarily cost popularity. This contention probably has some merit, although it can be self-serving and used by those who are struggling on other fronts. Moreover, I suspect that where governments are delivering well overall, they may be cut a bit of slack on a ''courageous'' policy. But, on current trends, even the brave might be excused for defaulting to a ''no risk'' approach.
Nearly 60 years ago, what polling there was showed a clear majority for the Menzies government's referendum proposal to outlaw the Communist Party. The ALP's right-wing powerbrokers were convinced that no poll-conscious politician should go anywhere near opposing it (sound familiar?) The then federal ALP leader, Evatt (a flawed man in many other ways), took the view that a great principle of political and civil liberty was at stake, and that the proposal simply had to be defeated. Polls showed the magnitude of the challenge.
It is history that Evatt campaigned tirelessly, turned public opinion around, and Australia was spared a great stain on its reputation as a free society.
Food for thought for those in thrall to polls.
Paul Rodan is an adjunct research associate in the school of political and social inquiry at Monash University.