Courier-Mail

This is the fun (sort of) page where the Whitlam Dismissal has been recorded in four different historical styles. This has been attempted to indicate how history writing has developed from the time of the ancient Greeks.

Anyway, the four historians chosen for this demonstration is Thucydides, More, Engels, and Macaulay. You may giggle at some of their writings, but I have tried to reproduce their style. For those that may not know some of these historians; Thucydides was the Greek historian who wrote about the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC). Sir Thomas More was many things, Chancellor of England for one thing, and wrote a number of books, including a History of King Richard III. He was beheaded by King Henry VIII in 1535. The German (Prussian/Rhineland) communist Engels, on the other hand, did not lose his head, but was the other half to Marx; in fact he co-authored the Communist Manifesto with Marx in 1848. Baron Thomas Babington Macaulay was a whig politician and historian. He wrote the History of England, a massive 5 volume work that took from 1849-61 to complete.

In the late spring, on the day Commemorated as Remembrance Day, which was the fifty seventh such day, the Australians remember those who have fallen in wars. It is usually done as follows. On the eleventh hour of this day, wherever they are, a short poem is said followed by a minute in silence. In this year, however, such an occasion arose that would give new meaning to this day. The Australian's, who by their constitution are a democracy, were demanded of them to chose their type of democracy. The then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, and the leader of the opposition, Mr Malcolm Fraser were their leaders. Two of them came to the people on the steps of Parliament House where they gathered with citizens. The people, concerned about their country, naturally developed suspicion of one while gained in sympathy for the other. And as the people increased in number so did their aspirations. Sir John spoke first.

"Our constitution combines the two elements of Responsible Government and Federalism. The Senate is, like the House, a popularly elected chamber. It is designed to provide representation for the States and has equal powers to the House so that it can amend or reject legislation if it is seen as damaging to them. For this reason it has denied Supply which has brought about this crisis. Due to this impasse I have decided to withdraw Mr Whitlam's warrant to form a government. This was done because Mr Whitlam could not obtain Supply. No other decision is open to me except that which would enable the Australian people to decide for themselves what should be done. In essence the people can do what, in a democracy such as ours, is their responsibility and duty, and theirs alone. It is for the people to decide the issue which the two leaders have failed to settle."

With these last words the citizens gave a great roar of outrage. Such an act, the dismissal of a national government, had not occurred before in Australia. So the citizens, there on the steps of Parliament, rejected Sir John's argument. Gough Whitlam simply waited until the shouting had lowered to a hush. He was seen as the people's hero and stood tall, erect and proud. He then spoke.

"Men and women of Australia. Well may we say God save the Queen because nothing will save the Governor-General. The proclamation which you have just heard from the Governor-General was countersigned Malcolm Fraser, who will undoubtedly go down in Australian history from Remembrance Day, 1975, as Kerr's cur. Clearly, the great issue, almost the sole issue of this campaign, will be whether the Government which the people elect in the House of Representatives will be allowed to govern from now on. The whole system, that which we have known as our democracy, is clearly under challenge as we see here today. This must be rejected by the votes of the Australian people. For it is they who decide who will govern and not Governor-Generals, not magistrates, not media proprietors, but the people."

Edward Gough Whitlam, a man of mighty nobility, of expert wit, of kind and generous heart, of blood equal of any Godly prince, a hansom, strong and proud benevolent man, truly admirable, a body of stature that equalled, if not surpassed many a great leader, of strong definitions, athletic, humble to a point, yet statesman-like to excess, began his reign as Prime Minister of Australia, in 1972, not by malpractice, or malice, or war, but by righteous law and Constitution, that being the ancient written knowledge and the conventions that have matured over the centuries to ensure righteous government. He clearly won favour with the People, who through their wisdom, rejected the appeals of the Liberal Party, and their leader, William McMahon. In doing so Whitlam came in like a lion and clearly lead Parliament. Reforms, that were required to further the greatness of the Kingdom, were introduced that benefited many of the People, but brought the envy of his enemies.

It soon came to pass that these enemies, whose wish was of heinous greed, hideous malice, and an appetite for power, plotted against Whitlam with hate, envy and wrathful vengeance. Malcolm Fraser, the new leader of the opposition, who replaced the noble Billy Snedden through treacherous means, and the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, would led the envious forces against Whitlam. Fraser, whom we will now observe, was, in both intelligence and endurance the equal of Whitlam, but in body, wit and compassion, far under him, his face showed no emotion, although his eyes were narrowly set, like a snake, it was once said, while his Presbyterian ideals easily allowed him to reject the generousness of Whitlam, in order to concentrate upon making profit. It was with such skills that he took it upon himself to replace Whitlam. In this task he sought the ally of the Governor-General.

Sir John Kerr, this evil captain, would be seduced by the reasoning of Fraser. Once thought to be a Labor man of high nobility, Sir John acted in hideous treason in becoming the ally of Fraser in this matter. Kerr, in all abilities, was not the equal of Fraser, let alone Whitlam. Fraser, after much wooing, easily convinced him, of the necessity of replacing Whitlam with himself. Such was the man who was known to be a drunkard, of body of no stature, of no wit, but, of only envy and hate in his eyes. If Whitlam ever made a mistake, then the appointment of Sir John as Governor-General, a position that requires a man of good noble standing, then this was it.

But Sir John was only of many who was seduced by Fraser. With good wit and reasoning Fraser announced to the nation:

"The Whitlam Government is finished. It has destroyed, due to its policies, this nation's ability to compete in the world, to keep an equal place with other nations, to truly be free to pursue its own future. It will be my sole purpose as head of a Government to restore responsible management to the nation's affairs, and to ensure that Australia has the General Election to which it is constitutionally entitled, and which has so far been denied it. The great defence of our democracy is that the Constitution must be upheld. The Australian people will have their say: the choice is theirs."

With this proclamation, Kerr acted and dismissed Whitlam, replacing him with Fraser. This dismissal occurred on the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, in the year of our Lord 1975, and the People were sadly seduced by Fraser for another nine years.

When the Whitlam Dismissal occurred on 11 November 1975, we, all of us, as far as our conception of the events in contemporary Australian and international politics was concerned, were under the impression of previous events of historical importance, namely that of Russia and China. It was therefore natural, and at the time unavoidable, that our conceptions of the events of the dismissal of a social democratic proletariat party, that being the Australian Labor Party, were strongly coloured by previous historical upheavals that had found echoes of proletariat victories in numerous nations in the Twentieth Century; when the very victory of the proletariat had so shaken the bourgeoisie of all the oppressed Capitalist countries that they fled back to the arms of conservative reactionary government which had just been overthrown by the circumstances and events of the 1960s - where a great power struggle began between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie had taken place - which for us, under these circumstances, there could be no doubt that the glorious decisive struggle had begun, that it would be fought in a long period of revolution, which could only end with the final victory of the proletariat.

Yet it is clear to us now that the events of 1975 ended in defeat with the illusions of democracy. This vulgar democracy grouped around the `provisional' government of Malcolm Fraser. This was reckoned on with a speedy and final decisive victory of the `people' over the `usurpers'; yet we recognise the delusion that has occurred. History will prove us right. It is clear that the state of economic development was not ripe for the removal of capitalist production; it has proved this by the economic changes which, since 1975, has transformed the entire Australian society, this has caused big changes in the dependence of Australia, for the first major time, upon, not only markets for Australian products, but also for capital input, without major government regulation, ownership of the capital base, corporation ownership, and finally employment. This, more than ever, for the first time produced a clarity in the class relationships, which has removed a number of transition forms handed down from the earlier rural and manufacturing periods; and this has created a genuine bourgeoisie and a genuine large proletariat which latter pushed into the foreground of social development. Now, owing to this, the struggle of these two classes, did not clearly represent the Australian people in 1975. Many of the proletariat, it is true, saw themselves as a clear identity, but many, especially those of the petty bourgeoisie, clearly still held fast to their bourgeoisie values.

In 1975, therefore, the masses, sundered and differed according to locality in class and region, linked only by their confusion and common suffering, politically undeveloped, tossed to and froe in their despair and returned to their comforting bourgeoisie leaders. The imperial reaction of Sir John Kerr gave a new proof of the mistiming of the proletarian aspirations of that time. But, it was itself to create the conditions under which they would be fulfilled. The clam that was restored ensured the full development of industrial strength; this is the necessity of producing the awareness of the proletariat.

Edward Gough Whitlam, who was elected the Prime Minister of Australia in 1972, was unquestionably Labor's, and Australia's, last great Prime Minister. With his sacking in 1975, the nation not only sacrificed a great leader, but also sacrificed its own freedom which had been won by them earlier. This great, fearless, brave and strong as a lion, man clearly stood unequalled in the House of Representatives; that great House that is the embodiment of the People. He was truly, at the time, a man without equal; a man of great vision for a nation that had been stifled under conservative rule since 1949. Truly we can say that Whitlam was the People's choice and history has judged him well; especially when the great reforms that had been introduced have clearly advanced Australia far.

But two other men, greedy for power, cowardly in their actions, were treacherous to the Australian People. Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General, a totally scurrilous, drunkard of a man, who never had the true qualities to hold such a high honourable and noble office of government, took power to his head and helped to destroy true Australian Democracy. As Lord Acton announced "Power tends to corrupt; while absolute power corrupts absolutely". At first, Kerr was considered to be a Labor man, a member of the same party that Whitlam was the leader. Yet, with research coming to light, we believe that this assumption is wrong. During Kerr's time on the bar in New South Wales, he had a history of turning against the Labor and union movements. For this reason, we believe him to be nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing, and when called upon to betray Whitlam for the conservative establishment, did so due to his drunkenness with false power.

But Kerr was only the tool by which Whitlam was betrayed. The Opposition leader Malcolm Fraser, who at first appearance seems an expressionless unemotional statue of a man, believed it to be his destiny to do anything to remove Whitlam from government. All kinds of bending and breaking of constitutional conventions were used against the Whitlam Government, which finally lead to its dreadful dismissal. Instead of helping develop the rights and prerogatives of the nation, the advancement and protection of the individual, the ultimate in this nation we call a Liberal Democracy, Fraser used these conventions, which have taken hundreds of years to mature since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, into a warped, evil, instrument, in order, not to advance Australia, but only himself.

On the 11th November 1975 the nation received the sad news of the Whitlam sacking. The excuse was of that of the twisting of constitutional conventions over Supply. Here the conservatives threatened to block the required Money Bill. Kerr decided, on this `threat', that the Whitlam Government did not have the confidence of Parliament, and sacked them. However, the Constitution does not imply this: on the contrary, Kerr broke constitutional conventions where the Governor-General is denied to interpret the constitution. The nation reacted with sorrow, indignation and confusion. Furthermore, it has clearly been the closest that the nation has been to revolution within living memory. Hence, we do not understand why, on 13th December 1975, the Whitlam Government was not returned to office. But this is certain; truly when such an action has occurred, when a government enjoys, as it does now, the shadow of power, then it follows that this same nation only enjoys the shadow of freedom.