Search results

This paper argues that although our understanding of politics in colonial New South Wales in the period after 1856 has increased in recent times there is little appreciation of the political rhetoric employed to justify those politics. It contends that the key to understanding that rhetoric is an appreciation that politics was not understood in terms of institutional design but focused rather on the quality of political leaders. In particular, as exemplified by the case of Henry Parkes, it involved being British and being able to work British institutions. This emphasis on personal politics, rather than institutional matters such as the creation of checks and balances, helped to shape the nature of democratic institutions in Australia. In particular it encouraged a form of democracy that concentrated power. The refusal of members of the Legislative Council to oppose the Influx of Chinese Restriction Bill is an early indication of the consequences of that form of democracy.

This essay examines the model of state development put forward by Francis Fukuyama in his book, The Origins of Political Order. It argues that the evolutionary model used by Fukuyama experiences problems when it comes to dealing with specific historical examples. Its emphasis on the Qin state as the "first modern state" places an excessive emphasis on coercion and violence as the basis of the state. It attempts to relegate Rome to being equivalent to a chiefdom to fit it into his model whereas in reality Rome evolved differently to China and relied much more on cooperation and networks. England after 1688 provides another example of how Fukuyama's model is deficient. On this basis the paper argues that a universal evolutionary model is insufficient to explain political development and it is more appropriate to begin analysis with real political societies.