With the Australian election drawing to a close this weekend, there are important lessons to be learned from what has been one of the most confused episodes since the 1975 Whitlam Dismissal. Personality politics has permeated throughout Australian politics such that photos of opposition leader Tony Abbott in budgie smugglers, or swim briefs, and instagram pics of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd cutting himself shaving are the front and centre of Australian discourse. But what is sacrificed in the wake of personality politics? When one form of political communication, and in a sense political legitimacy, becomes the norm, what is reduced in importance? Critically, in this election, policy discussions on almost any topic have been marginalised in the face of individual leaders and how likeable or charismatic they are. This has profound implications, not only in Australia, but also elsewhere as we see political discourse become characterized by larger-than-life figures who use their oversized personas to divert the public away from the numerous difficult questions that we face.

It would be hard to be involved in this election and miss the primacy of personality politics. The personality of Rudd took centre-stage at his moment of triumph, winning the 2007 election, when volunteers and minders constantly clothed in Kevin 07 T-shirts took on the image of supplicants in front of a benevolent leader. Similarly the opposition leader Abbott, while shying away from public scrutiny, has formulated the liberal party’s election platform around his own personality. For example, when Aboriginal policy is discussed, the response from members of the liberal party is to assert that Abbott travels to remote indigenous communities every year. This belies the fact that most Aboriginal people live in cities and the large cost of flying in a politician and entourage. Both of these leaders are hence displaying some of what Max Weber terms charismatic authority by setting themselves apart from the party and governance structure. When legitimacy begins to rest on an individual instead of voter agreement on policy, the quality of our institutions are undermined. If the electorate focuses around either one of these individuals any further, untruths can be disseminated without criticism.

This is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon. U.S. presidential elections have an overwhelming focus on personality. Similarly in Europe, political movements have been founded around a singular personality, such as with the Five Star Movement of Beppe Grillo in Italy.

Popularity politics has stunted progress concerning important political issues such as climate change. In the United States, for example, environmental policy has stagnated at a federal level with states picking up the slack. The complex nature of dealing with climate change is exacerbated when focus shifts to personality instead of policy. Short term issues are highlighted by politicians keenly aware of the next election, while long-term policy change is left undiscussed.

When the focus turns to the preferred prime minister, we lose sight of the broader issues and instead narrow in on the personal faults or virtues. The routine of gaffes being swiftly broadcast is more of a personal attack than one which challenges the reasons behind decisions and goals. Romney’s binders full of women moment did shed some light on his views towards women. However with such gaffes, an individual’s poor choice of words becomes more the focus than any policy they may or may not have in that area.

Ultimately, personalities are a constant in politics, and charismatic individuals such as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. have been instrumental in shaping history. What differentiates them from the figures of today is that they were part of a wider movement that went on without them. The incarceration of Nelson Mandela did not stop the struggle to end apartheid. Similarly the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. did not halt the civil rights cause. However, in political messages condensed into 140 characters and cycles communicated through public relations jargon, one must question what else is pushed to the side or silenced altogether.