Remember when elections could shape society?

MY postal vote has arrived. Like all those unable to vote at the polls on Shabbat, I have the convenience of studying the ballot in the comfort of my own home and the added advantage of as much time as this first-time voter needs to work out how to fulfil my civic duty — a task that cannot be completed in a hurry.

It’s not just the number of candidates that is overwhelming, nor the staggering requirement to number senate hopefuls from 1 to 60 (since I choose not to waive my hard-won electoral rights to the party hacks with one tick above-the-line). It’s a far more profound problem.

The package from the Electoral Commission includes a leaflet entitled “how to complete your postal vote”, which, despite its promising title, does not answer my question. It’s not that I can’t decide for whom to vote. It’s that I can’t decide how to decide.

In a recent “vox pop” in this newspaper, some respondents suggested that their vote would be determined exclusively by the parties’ stance on Israel. Others suggested that we should be guided by politicians’ support for issues deemed crucial for our community — such as funding for Jewish schools, Holocaust education in the Australian curriculum, or security.

Even if this narrow approach be justified, how do we know which is the party to support? It was said that when Golda Meir was asked which British party gave more support to Israel she replied “whichever is in opposition”, and we may have the same problem in Australia. Sympathetic noises made during campaigns are not always turned into reality in government. One’s local candidate may champion Israel’s cause, but policy is decided by the foreign minister.

As for promises to meet other ¬≠concerns, the devil remains in the unspecified detail. Millions are proffered to fund security, yet the precise proportion that will find its way to Jewish institutions is not spelt out. A claim that “independent schools will not lose funding” can conceal a loss in real terms that could cost schools, and hence fee-paying parents, millions of dollars.

But most of us realise that at stake in this election is more than a Middle East policy or a school funding arrangement. It’s about the government of Australia. As Jewish Australians we have a responsibility to consider not only our narrow parochial interests, but also those of the wider community of which we are a part. But this does not make the decision any easier.

There was a time when elections were truly about what sort of society we wanted, when they pitted socialism against capitalism, before evolving into gentler contests between fairness and opportunity. In turn the debate was reduced to “slightly bigger government” versus “slightly smaller government”.

But in this election we look in desperation for even the slightest sense of rival visions. We are asked to choose between sending asylum seekers to (possibly) East Timor or to (possibly) Nauru; and whether new parents should be paid (by us) for 26 or 18 weeks.

Which leaves only the question of leadership. In an election that is more presidential than ever before, with frontbench spokespeople reduced to mute backdrops behind their leaders, perhaps the biggest choice we have is whether to be led by him or by her — even though we have seen how easy it is to elect one prime minister only to have the party caucus choose another on our behalf.

Alas, neither leader on offer offers an exciting vision. Maybe it’s the fault of the campaign, which forces parties to react to the urgency of 24-hour news with rebuttals reeking of negativity, platitudinous slogans or walkabouts that appeal visually yet communicate nothing about the future of Australia. But the message we receive is uninspiring and indecisive. In the modern era, the media oblige us to choose on the basis of which leader makes fewer mistakes, while the electorate wait in vain to hear direction and leadership.

We do not need a return to the campaigning style of William Gladstone, who won the 1880 election with a series of five-hour speeches (on foreign policy!), delivered to open-air audiences. But our intelligence would be honoured, and our knowledge of the leadership on offer enhanced, by a policy or a theme developed into more than a 10-second sound bite.

Despite the difficulty, I eventually reach my decision and conclude which candidate offers a program that is, on balance, best for the people of Australia, for my family and for the Jewish community. In a ritual that is simple and yet bears elegant witness to the struggle of those who fought and died for the cause of universal suffrage, I write a digit next to the name of my first choice.

And now I have to decide on the next 59.