The Power of No

The task before us is not to fear the public’s right to say No.

It is to govern in such a way that people can once again believe there is something worth saying Yes to.

There is a great deal to digest in what has happened in the United States.

Donald Trump did not become powerful because people suddenly became interested in chaos. He became powerful because millions believed the existing system was no longer listening. Whether people admire him or fear him, the lesson is the same: when trust collapses, people reach for the strongest tool still left in their hands.

That tool is "No".

No to major parties. No to experts. No to institutions. No to media. No to being told everything is fine when lived experience says it is not.

We are beginning to see versions of this in Australia too. Not in exactly the same form, because our democratic system has stronger guardrails: compulsory voting, preferential voting, independent electoral administration and a parliamentary tradition. But we would be foolish to think we are immune.

Australians are showing signs of deeper political restlessness. They are voting for independents, minor parties and protest candidates. They are rejecting proposals that feel poorly explained. They are pushing back against institutions that once expected automatic respect.

That is the power of No.

No is often dismissed as negative. Sometimes it is. But No can also be a democratic alarm bell. It can be the public’s way of saying: slow down, explain yourself, stop assuming consent, stop treating consultation as theatre.

The danger is that No can become addictive. A community can reach the point where rejecting things feels safer than building things. Cynicism starts to look like wisdom. Outrage becomes easier than reform. Social media makes this worse, because anger travels faster than patience.

But the answer cannot be to scold people back into trust. Trust does not return because leaders demand it. Trust returns when institutions become trustworthy again.

That means government must rediscover old-fashioned virtues: competence, honesty, restraint, fairness and service.

Do what you said you would do. Explain why a decision has been made. Admit when something has gone wrong. Publish the evidence. Spend public money carefully. Consult before the decision, not after it. Treat disagreement as information, not disloyalty.

There is still hope in Australia because most people have not given up on democracy. They have given up on being managed. They still want government to work. They still believe in fairness. What they reject is the feeling that decisions are made somewhere else, by people who will not carry the consequences.

That is why rebuilding trust must start close to home.

Local government has a particular opportunity. It is the level of government people can see. Roads, rubbish, rates, parks, planning, safety, access, markets, footpaths, trees and stormwater are not abstract theories. They are the daily texture of civic life.

When local government is practical, respectful and transparent, it reminds people that democracy is not only something that happens in Canberra. It happens in streets, chambers, community halls and quiet acts of service.

But local government can also lose trust quickly when it becomes inward-looking, performative or dismissive. People can forgive a hard decision if they believe it was made honestly. They are far less forgiving when they feel a decision was already stitched up before they were invited to comment.

So is it too late to rebuild trust?

No. But it is too late for the old habits.

It is too late for governments to assume authority alone will carry the day. Too late for consultation that listens politely and changes nothing. Too late for public language that hides more than it reveals. Too late for treating ordinary people as obstacles to progress, rather than the reason progress is meant to occur.

The power of No is not the end of democracy. It is democracy reminding us that consent matters.

A healthy society cannot live on No alone. Eventually, every No must be followed by a better Yes.

Yes to fairness. Yes to careful spending. Yes to honest debate. Yes to safe streets. Yes to opportunity. Yes to systems that protect the poor and vulnerable while still encouraging enterprise, effort and ambition.

The task before us is not to fear the public’s right to say No.

It is to govern in such a way that people can once again believe there is something worth saying Yes to.