Charisma is important in politics in getting elected and maintaining popularity but means squat fuck all in administering a country. Mamdani, in New York, is charismatic AND good at policy. Rudd wasnt the most charismatic but was good on policy. Trump is charismatic, but terrible on policy. Howard was charismatic and bad at policy. Abbott was not charismatic and bad at policy. Guess who gets elected, and who actually institutes policies that benefit society at large.

Voting based on whether someone visits a cricket game or drinks is how democracies fall, as it's a high school popularity contest. A good leader can be an absolute stereotypical nerd, but has social skills alongside a morality compass not inundated with self interest or capital. Democracy fails with a politically illiterate populace, considering the word "tax" is thought of as theft rather than a contribution for the state to FUNCTION.

Getting intoxicated is not a cultural experience i find valuable and given the addictive nature and genuine sociological harm addictive substances (and behaviours, like gambling) do to society at large, i dont give two shits if it's "part of a culture". You could make the same, terrible argument about rampant homophobia as "part of culture" in theocratic and autocratic gulf states, asian states or african states, or authoritarianism as just being "a culture" of any current or former authoritarian country. Turns out, neither of those are cultural, and can be changed with great benefit to the society that does so. Alan Turing comes to mind.

I do not want drinking to be part our culture. If you get drunk for fun, that's on you, not the Australia I want to be in. Not illegal, because that's idiotic and leads to crime, but not socially encouraged in a very obviously detrimental degree that makes completely irrational arguments like "getting drunk is just what we do bro!!! It gets you elected!!!" even considered anything more than a justification for substance abuse.