Political dynasties
The dynastic duelling in the raises an intriguing question here in Australia: why have the antipodes not produced a greater number of political families in the mould of the Clintons or the Kennedys – or, for that matter, the Romneys, the Bayhs, the Cuomos, the Humphreys, the Browns, the Daleys, the Chafees or the Gores.
Why is Australia not a country of political primogeniture? Why, having seen the rise of Kevin 07, are we unlikely to bring you Jessica 16, ‘Nicholas 22, or Marcus 41?
Of the country’s modern-day politicians, Alexander Downer, the foreign affairs minister in the Howard government, probably boasts the most stellar political bloodline.
His grandfather, John Downer, was the premier of South Australia in the late 19th century. His dad, Alexander Sr.,was a member of parliament and a minister for immigration. Like Joe Kennedy Sr., the domineering patriarch of the Kennedy clan, Alexander Sr. also served as his country’s ambassador – or high commissioner, to be precise – in London.
But that is where the comparisons between the Downers and the Kennedys both start and end. It is hard to imagine Alexander Downer’s jowly features adorning the front cover of, say, , or seeing a seductively-shot photo-spread ‘At Home with the Downers’ on its inside pages. Similarly, I have yet to come across an opinion piece entitled The Downer Mystique or The Downer Effect.
What about the Playfords, I hear you cry, South Australia’s other blueblood political dynasty? Thomas Playford II was also a state premier, as was his grandson, Thomas Playford IV. Sadly, Thomas Playford V, the family’s present-day political standard bearer, has enjoyed less sucess. In the 2006 state election, he polled just 15% of the vote. Rather aptly, perhaps, he was a candidate for the Family First party.
On the Labor side, there are a few mini-dynasties. Bob Hawke’s uncle, Bert, was the premier of Western Australia in the 1950s. The federal parliament has also been graced by two Kim Beazleys. The first was a minister in the Whitlam government; the second, his son, was the leader of the opposition until he was ousted by one Kevin Rudd. Curiously, Kim Beazley Jr. shares the same unhappy record as his fellow political scion, Al Gore (whose father Al Gore Sr, was also a US Senator): to have won the popular vote in a national election but not the election itself.
So why are there not more multi-generational political dynasties? Perhaps it is a question of time and patience. After all, some families have only been in Australia for a couple of generations. Perhaps it has something to do, dare I say it, with the prospect of spending half your life in landlocked Canberra. Perhaps Australian politics lacks glamour and razzmatazz, and thus prestige and social cache. Perhaps some of the most talented people born in this country quickly leave its shores – ‘tall poppies’ fearful of being felled if they stay.
Perhaps it has something to do with the dominance of business over politics. Some of Australia’s most influential families – the Fairfaxs, the Packers and the Murdochs - decided to vest their energies in creating vast media empires rather than making Canberra the target of their ambitions.
Arguably, media clout in Australia can sometimes be stronger, and certainly more enduring, than political clout. At their height , Sir Frank Packer and Kerry Packer continued to enjoy massive influence regardless of whether a Labor or Liberal prime minister occupied The Lodge. The same was and still is true of Sir Keith Murdoch and his son, Rupert.
These dynastic media empires brought them global power, too. Just as Kerry Packer revolutionised international cricket, Rupert Murdoch has revolutionised UK and US media.
Had they chosen a different path and replaced, say, Harold Holt, John Gorton, Malcolm Fraser or Bob Hawke, as Australian prime ministers, would they have wielded so much global influence or achieved such global fame?
I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
This is a horrible post if ever I've seen one. Not just because I disagree, but it's honestly just not good.
It's pretty obvious that Australia is far younger than basically every other country in the world. Dynasties take centuries upon centuries of rules, regulations, defining and then redifining.
Why build yourself so high just to get too mighty and fall? This is just lunacy to compare us to such historic countries and leaders. Our politicians aren't celebrity, heart-throbs, kissing babies on the high street and waving out of cars. Our politicians are in parliament, bickering away and shouting their ayes and nays.
Absolute balls.
Geez, Emily, calm down. Nick is putting forward a very vaild reason why Australia has less political dynasties than other nations. A young nation isn't exactly the reason - the Indian republic was only created some 60 years ago and have already had a political dynasty. I'm sure there are other examples of this around the world. Lay off the guy, if you don't agree with his post, then state why, instead of just ranting off extended ad hominem.
"if you don't agree with his post, then state why ..."
Thank you md, I was going to make the same point. The fact that he was able to use the Murdochs and the Packers as examples is enough to suggest that the kind of dynasty Nick is writing about in his post isn't the kind that takes "centuries upon centuries" to cement in place, and the comparison with India is valid. Burma didn't gain its independence until 1948 and it's already had a might-have-been dynasty -- Aung San, if he hadn't been assassinated, and Aung San Suu Kyi, if the military junta would only get out of the way.
Could the limit that the Americans place on the Presidential term in office also have something to do with it? We can keep electing a Prime Minister until we're sick of the sight of him and never want to hear from him or his family again, but the Americans can't keep a Kennedy in office indefinitely even if they want to. (Somehow I doubt that this would play a massive role in the creation or not-creation of a Prime Ministerial dynasty, but it's a thought.)
The best I can come up with is Bruce Baird and his son Mike. There is also Joel Fitzgibbon who took over his seat from his father Eric.
Australians produce great sporting dynasties ie the Chappells, the Ellas...but do not do so well on the political side. Perhaps it is because we are too busy watching cricket or rugby?
Your point is well-made, but there are a number of dynasties in Australian state politics, sometimes overlapping into federal
Sth Australia- The Downers and Playfords (as written)
Victoria - The Cains (Premiers John Jnr and Snr)
NSW - The Anthonys (deputy PM Doug and minister son Larry)
QLD- The Bjelke-Petersens (Premier Joh, Senator Flo and their failed candidiate son John)
WA - The Courts (Charles and Robert, both premier) and the Burkes (MP father Tom, premier son Brian and MP son Terry)
Because Australians are sensibly cynical about politics and politicians - and don't want to make saints out of any family. No Australian politician is going to be feted like JFK, either when alive or dead. THe nearest we have to that was the repulsive hagiography of Gough Whtitlam by his supporters and sections of the media. (Look out for an orgy of adulation when he dies). Not having political dynatsies is a sign of political maturity not the reverse. Does modern Austria, Italy, Germany or Spain have political dynatsies? No. Australia is the same. It is the US which is the odd man out. But then they hanker for a monarchy, apparently. We sensibly just rent the atrocious British family and then treat our elected politicians as they ought to be treated, with mild support or disdain.
Because Australians are sensibly cynical about politics and politicians - and don't want to make saints out of any family. No Australian politician is going to be feted like JFK, either when alive or dead. THe nearest we have to that was the repulsive hagiography of Gough Whtitlam by his supporters and sections of the media. (Look out for an orgy of adulation when he dies). Not having political dynatsies is a sign of political maturity not the reverse. Does modern Austria, Italy, Germany or Spain have political dynasties? No. Australia is the same. It is the US which is the odd man out. But then they hanker for a monarchy, apparently. We sensibly just rent the atrocious British family and then treat our elected politicians as they ought to be treated, with mild support or disdain.
There is obviously some doubt among your readers about what constitutes a political dinasty and whether they exist in Australia. If just some of the reported nepotism that exists in much of Australian industry is endemic then political parties will surely follow. It's only a matter of time.
wELL YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THE MEDIA CONTROLLING POLITICS ! and fairfax is behind the labor pr for sure along with the bbc ,how unfortunate
that we cannot get the truth anymore ,only bias reporting .in the election the bbc and fairfax never asked rudd anything and he never answered anything either ,the bbc is supposed to be public not controlled by one party or another ,it is interesting to note that the fairfax is also mixed up with the chinese and married to one much younger than he is by about 40 yrs pretty suspect if you ask me .