Why Australia should vote before it fights

Dr Adriano Tedde writes that war should never be a governmental reflex, but requires democratic consent, because those who pay the price deserve to have their voices heard before the first shot is fired.

LEADERS AROUND THE WORLD are increasingly normalizing the possibility of war and urging societies to prepare for war.

Since 2022, rearmament, conscription discussions and declarations of war have intensified across Europe following Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Instead of prioritizing diplomatic means to end a war on their doorstep, European institutions largely doubled down on military support, echoing Rome’s phrase. Si vis tempom, para bellum -If you want peace, prepare for war.

At the same time, global instability appears to be widening. As a Peace Nobel Prize candidate Donald Trump While it is expanding the areas of conflict with its attacks in Latin America and the Middle East, global public opinion is focused on the war. In such an environment, war is no longer understood as an exception but as a possible feature of international politics.

In these moments, a familiar group of voices comes to the fore. Experts in geopolitics, strategy and military affairs talk about changes in the balance of great powers. Their analysis is indispensable in helping policymakers and the public understand conflict dynamics. But they rarely address a more fundamental question: How can war be prevented rather than managed?

Like Leo Tolstoy suggests that War and PeaceThe causes of conflict can be explored indefinitely by rigorous scientific research, but no explanation can ever justify the human tragedy of war. psychologist recently James Hillman discussed A Terrible Love of War (2004) say that war is so deeply embedded in human experience that it escapes rational understanding. For him, war is “inhumane”; It is something that is beyond the human mind even if we try to analyze it.

If this is the case, there is value in changing the way we frame war. Rather than treating the issue as merely a strategic or technical issue, it can also be understood as a social justice issue. Such a reframing does not replace geopolitical analysis but complements it by highlighting the human and social consequences of organized violence.

This change in the way we perceive and examine war is important because public debates often abstract war as strategic competition, deterrence models, and military capability. These concepts can obscure the everyday reality of war. In a neoliberal economy marked by precarity, many citizens are more directly concerned with economic survival rather than geopolitical abstractions.

Even today’s angry, impoverished nationalist voters are less preoccupied with fighting a foreign enemy than making a living. MAGA supporters’ anti-war sentiments He seems to approve.

At its core, war remains a highly unequal enterprise. While decisions to use force are made by a narrow section of the political leadership, the costs are borne collectively and disproportionately by combatants (often the least privileged segments of society) and those living in conflict zones.

Frequently attributed quote linked to poets Paul Valery or Pablo Nerudacaptures this asymmetry:

“War is the massacre of people who do not know each other for the benefit of people who know each other but do not kill each other.”

If war is understood in this way, its prevention becomes not only a strategic goal but also a democratic imperative. To quote Rome’s words: Si vis tempom, for democracy – If you want peace, prepare democracy, as Italian constitutionalists claim Gustavo Zagrebelsky.

For Australia, this principle has direct policy relevance. Latest offers Reforming war powers, put forward by the Australian Greens, would require parliamentary approval before deploying the Australian Defense Force into armed conflict. The reason is clear: Such big decisions should not belong solely to the executive branch. Parliamentary control It would bring debate, transparency and accountability to decision-making, making the use of force more compatible with democratic consent.

This is not a radical proposal, nor does it restrict Australia’s ability to act in its national interests. Rather, it would strengthen legitimacy and public debate and ensure that decisions to go to war are subject to the same standards of deliberation expected in other areas of public policy.

Additional measures could strengthen this rationale. Stronger regulatory oversight, if not targeted taxation of wartime windfalls in the arms and energy sectors, or nationalization of these sectors. This could help address the economic incentives that accompany protracted conflict. But such policies depend on solid democratic institutions that can act independently of concentrated economic interests and restore the primacy of the public good over profit.

In a strategic environment increasingly defined by the prospect of conflict, middle powers such as Australia face a choice. They may uncritically conform to dominant narratives of militarization or seek to shape alternative approaches based on democratic accountability and the rule of law.

Seeking parliamentary approval for war will not eliminate the risk of global conflict. However, this would represent a meaningful step towards accountability and transparency in important decisions. More generally, this will mark a shift in understanding war not only as a matter of techno-geopolitical strategy but also as an issue grounded in social justice.

In an era of renewed great power rivalry, preparing for peace requires not only military preparedness but also democratic commitment.