Prof James Walter
Politics Department
School of Political and Social Inquiry
Monash University
James.walter@arts.monash.edu.au
Stream: Australian and New Zealand Politics
Refereed: Yes
Why Johnnie goes too far: institutional change and the renaissance of
groupthink
The characteristics of groupthink and its adverse effects on leadership are well
understood, as is the necessity for institutional arrangements that fend off groupthink
by demanding logical justification and recurrent reality checks by policy-makers. This
paper examines recent Australian political events—controversial decisions relating to
the reception of refugee-seekers, the Australian commitment to the Iraq war, debates
over the politicisation of intelligence assessments—and discerns a renaissance of
groupthink in John Howard’s leadership group.
The threshold requirements and the networks that imposed constraints on leadership
caprice for most of the post-war period have been weakened by contemporary
institutional change, giving greater momentum to personalised leadership (while
diminishing the incentives for consistent reality checks), and leaving leaders of small
countries defenceless against what are alleged to be the demands of globalisation,
since vernacular tradition, party practices and local protocols have been swept away.
The paper advances three propositions. First, the need to connect a personal agenda to
a broad shared philosophy no longer prevails: party commitment to belief systems is
very much weaker than it used to be. But the conventional demand to “stand for”
something, and to carry party followers with you by showing how current action
connects to common goals was one form of check on leadership caprice. Second, the
transition from “mass” parties to “electoral-professional” parties has undermined the
party as a forum influencing policy debate. Third, the decline in belief in the public
sector, the privatisation and outsourcing of service provision and managerial reform
of the civil service have undermined the tradition of (relatively) neutral bureaucratic
advice (and a potential source of disinterested reality checks) and significantly
enhanced the power of partisan “insider” groups within ministerial offices. Such
insider groups constitute a fertile domain for encouraging groupthink.