Mark Latham's idea of outsourcing policy to independent bodies would represent the utter capitulation of the left and the idea that democratic politics should shape our society, writes Shaun Crowe.

Mark Latham is an erratic thinker at the best of times. His work over the years possesses an almost schizophrenic quality - he's a political dreamer stuck in the body of a pragmatist, a believer in politics so jaded that he's now its biggest critic.

This cynicism has led to the writing of new book, The Political Bubble: Why Australians Don't Trust Politics. At first glance, it's a hard title to fault. As a recent survey by Lowy Institute pollster Alex Oliver found, Australians in 2014 are as ambivalent about democracy as they ever have been - just 60 per cent (and only 42 per cent of our young people) now believe it is "preferable to any other kind of government".

Amid this malaise, Latham presents a series of solutions to the crisis of confidence. Perhaps most provocatively, he suggests a "light touch" brand of government, one that utilises independent bodies like the Reserve Bank to formulate a diverse array of policies.

Bodies similar to the Reserve Bank could be established to frame an independent climate change strategy and determine the major features of the federal budget (such as outlay and revenue targets, appropriate deficit/surplus levels and debt management policies). In its annual budgeting, the role of executive government would be to develop services and taxation measures compatible with these fiscal parameters.

This isn't exactly a new idea. It can be traced back to ancient Greece and Plato's notion of the Philosopher King. It mirrors Fareed Zakaria's argument that the Western democratic model is best symbolised by the "impartial judge, not the mass plebiscite". More recently, Clive Hamilton suggested that, in order to avert catastrophic climate change, some environmentalists might look to "suspend democratic processes".

Latham might call this a "less obtrusive, less grandiose, less pretentious" brand of politics, but there's another way of spinning it. Outsourcing fiscal and economic strategy to independent, unelected bodies would represent nothing less than the political left's utter capitulation.

The hint is in the name: "social democracy". Since breaking off from more revolutionary forms of socialism in the late 19th century, social democratic parties have existed in different contexts, in suitably different guises. But the philosophical glue that holds the movement together is a relatively simple one: it is, as Sheri Berman puts it, a "conviction that political forces rather than economic ones should be the driving forces of history".

Other people use different terms to say the same thing. Gosta-Esping Andersen, a Danish social scientist, described the movement as being built on "politics against markets". This might seem overly theoretical, but it can be explained quite easily. If social democrats believe anything, it's the power of democratic politics to shape the kind of communities we want to live in, providing a guiding force to challenge the demands of the economic marketplace.

Ben Chifley talked of creating "a condition of society in which man shall not be the slave of the state ... nor private financial interests in controlling his own destiny."

It seems that Latham has given in to this kind of fatalism - in his eyes, politics no longer has the power to influence the direction of our society. Globalisation and the competitive pressures of international capitalism now pose too great a restriction on government, rendering them socially impotent.

This is depressingly defeatist thinking from someone who once considered himself a progressive intellectual. It takes a certain kind of cynic to look at the Lowy Institute poll and think that what we need is less democracy.

Like the American Major in Vietnam ("it became necessary to destroy the town to save it") Latham thinks that democracy can only be salvaged by plunging another stake into its chest.

When I ask students at my university about modern politics, a number of complaints commonly arise. Contemporary politicians lack conviction, they lack vision, and they're often impossible to tell apart. This might be unfair, but it's a perception that clearly exists.

Latham's suggestion (effectively ending debates over the role of the state and the economic organisation of society) will deal with none of these criticisms - in fact, they're likely to exacerbate every single one of them.

Joe Hockey wants Australians to accept political fatalism. When he launched the "end of the age of entitlement" he framed it as necessary response to economic circumstance - we have no choice, the "reality can no longer be avoided".

It's the job of the political left to challenge this complacency, this belief that we cannot mould the type of society we want to leave to our children. Outsourcing policy to experts won't do that, and I'm sure that's something Latham knows deep down.

It's a hard job, it requires a lot of intellectual work and persuasion, but it's also necessary - progressive politics is pointless without it.

Shaun Crowe is a PhD student in Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University. View his full profile here.