What’s more powerful than the politics of division? Actually listening to people | Julianne Schultz

The contrast is between politics that hears people’s problems and politics that turns grievance into anger against enemies. Listening means understanding anxiety, disappointment and unfairness, then offering a practical path forward. Division offers emotional release but little ability to govern. This matters because distrust grows when people feel spoken at rather than represented.

The article points to a new generation of American Democrats that gave voters a way to reject chaos, division and big-money politics. It also contrasts this approach with Donald Trump’s promise, “I am your retribution,” and with Pauline Hanson’s anger-focused appeal. Hanson may sound authentic to some voters because she speaks like people they know, even though the article says her rhetoric is difficult to turn into effective administration.

Australia faces similar pressures. The Democracy Index shows that almost half the population believes politicians do not understand people like them. A reset would require politicians to listen beyond prepared talking points, stay connected to communities and respond to real concerns. Otherwise, grievance may continue strengthening figures who promise retribution instead of workable solutions.

Populist authoritarianism is a political style that claims to represent “the people” against elites or institutions while favouring strong, personal power over open, pluralist debate. The article presents it as a danger because genuine hardship can be redirected into division. Instead of solving complex problems, leaders may promise punishment, order or revenge. This definition draws on established political knowledge; the article mainly describes the mechanism rather than defining the term.

Donald Trump’s promise, “I am your retribution,” shows how grievance can become political loyalty. Pauline Hanson also benefits from appearing to hear people who feel ignored. The article says her lack of sophistication can seem authentic, because she speaks like people some supporters know. That emotional connection may outweigh doubts about her ability to manage public administration.

The article argues that authoritarian populism is not inevitable. Politicians can answer grievance through listening, community involvement and practical reform. The American Democrats cited, along with political examples from Brazil, Serbia and Hungary, are presented as evidence that democratic resets can be progressive rather than retaliatory.

The Democracy Index and Scanlon report present distrust as a broad and worsening problem, not a complaint limited to a small group. The article says urgency for a reset is increasing, trust is plummeting and cynicism is increasing. It gives one clear measure: almost half the population believes politicians do not understand “people like me.” No total percentage for general distrust is provided.

The findings matter because they describe a damaged relationship between citizens and representatives. People feel politicians are out of touch with grassroots communities, do not listen or involve the public, and lack transparency. They also suspect that vested interests, party loyalty and re-election can matter more to politicians than difficult decisions or public needs.

The reports suggest that distrust is becoming politically consequential. When people feel ignored, anger can be captured by figures who sound authentic and promise retribution. The article calls for a reset after the Bondi shooting and alleged attack on Helen Haines, with deeper listening rather than only security, process and political point-scoring.

The reports identify a widening gap between Australians and their representatives. Almost half the population thinks politicians do not understand “people like me”. The article also describes trust as plummeting and cynicism as increasing. These are signs that representative institutions are losing credibility, even though Australia remains a representative democracy.

People describe politicians as out of touch with grassroots communities. They say politicians lack transparency, do not listen or involve the community, favour vested interests and may be corrupt. They also believe politicians can put party allegiance and re-election ahead of doing difficult things. Security responses after the alleged attack on Helen Haines reinforced this distance by making access harder.

The article links these warnings to the design of political life. Events require pre-booking, identification and scans, while MPs move quickly between managed encounters. This leaves little room for challenging views to reach them. Unless politicians rebuild genuine contact and act on what they hear, resentment may deepen and populist appeals may grow.

Feeling unheard weakens the basic relationship between citizens and representatives. People may stop trusting institutions, become cynical about elections and conclude that established politicians serve parties or powerful interests instead of communities. The article describes Australians as disappointed and exasperated, with many feeling that carefully prepared talking points do not address their pain, anxiety or hopelessness.

That gap creates an opening for anger-focused politicians. Pauline Hanson is described as someone who seems to hear voters and might respond to their inequities. Her perceived authenticity can matter more than her ability to manage complex public administration. Donald Trump’s promise to be “your retribution” illustrates the same emotional mechanism: grievance is turned into loyalty through the promise of punishment.

The consequences are not inevitable, but they are serious. The article says democratic resets can be progressive when politicians listen and provide a path forward. Without that response, public anger may be channelled into division, political point-scoring and support for leaders offering symbolic revenge instead of practical solutions.

Community independents offer an alternative by making local relationships central to political work. Rather than starting with a party platform and moving instructions downward, they begin with residents’ concerns and maintain contact with the community. This matters because the article says many people feel politicians are inaccessible, unheard and disconnected from grassroots life.

The article identifies a locally embedded model developed by former independent MP Cathy McGowan in Indi. It calls this model a profound challenge to the top-down, internally focused system of party politics. Its key mechanism is sustained local engagement: representatives pay attention to constituents and allow community concerns to shape political action, rather than relying only on controlled events and brief encounters.

The model does not remove political difficulty, but it offers a different route to trust. The alleged attack on Helen Haines was especially painful because she was at the forefront of doing politics differently. The article implies that protecting access and listening will be essential if democratic institutions are to recover credibility.

Representative democracy is a system in which citizens choose representatives to make public decisions on their behalf. Representation is more than winning an election. It requires ongoing contact, accountability and attention to different communities. This matters because no single group has the whole public’s experience, and the loudest or wealthiest voices may not reflect people facing less visible hardship.

The article shows what happens when access narrows. MPs attend tightly controlled functions involving pre-booking, identification, scans and brief managed exchanges. Staff move them quickly to the next important person. Such arrangements allow little that challenges the prevailing worldview to get through. The article says this is the antithesis of real communication, especially when people already feel ignored.

Hearing widely helps representatives identify pain, inequity and practical needs before anger is captured by retribution politics. The proposed reset would therefore require more than security or process. It would mean involving communities, listening beyond party talking points and responding openly to concerns, including those that are inconvenient or politically quiet.