The Senator is not there

to represent her own views. She is there to represent the state which elected her...or is she?

A Senator in our national parliament has just resigned from the party which helped her get elected. She is now apparently going to sit as an "independent" on the cross bench. Her resignation came because the government would not support a Greens motion to recognise a Palestinian state. 

The Senator in question is a Muslim. She wears the hijab. She has stated in an interview she prays five times a day. And somewhere along the line she has confused her faith with her political responsibilities...or that is how it seems.

I have been asked more than once whether I would like to join a political party - a political party of more than one persuasion. It has usually been when I have taken a particularly strong stand on an issue which is "party policy" for one side or the other. My answer has always been "no thank you". I will then get something like "But you would be useful...." 

I have no desire to be "useful" to any political party. It is much more satisfying to be able to hold my own views on all sorts of matters. I have no desire to "toe the party line" in any way at all. There are occasions on which I have altered my views when something changes or a situation develops. There is also something to be said for "stirring the pot" occasionally. I dislike complacency, especially in politics.

All that said however if you are elected as a member of parliament at any level you are not there to represent yourself you are there to represent the people who elected you. If you do not like the rules of the party that helped you get elected then you can try and change them from within. 

In this instance the Senator in question is saying she voted according to her "conscience".  That may very well be necessary if it is a matter which will otherwise negatively affect the members of her electorate. It is neither necessary or acceptable when it is not. 

The Senator in question fell into a political trap set by a minor party on which the government must rely to get legislation through the Senate.  She has given the minor party more power...and their policies are not those she is there to represent. Her "conscience" is apparently not troubled by this but then she has four more years of excessive pay to consider as well.