Communism was a really good idea – stay with me here – and so is democracy. Unfortunately, neither ended up the way their idealist inventors imagined.

Cartoon: Michael Atchison

If you lived through the ‘Reds under the bed’ era this might come as a shock, but at its core communism is really rather nice. It would be great to think that we could treat everyone as equal and be sharing, caring community.

The fatal flaw, though, is communism didn’t really take human nature and greed into account, so ‘What’s mine is yours’ evolved into ‘What’s mine (and yours) is the dictator’s’.

Democracy started off in a similar vein – based on the premise that all members of a community should have equal share of political power. Sure, originally those citizens only included rich males of the dominant cultural group, but we’ve fixed that along the way.

The problem now is all the institutions that have been created to make the great idea a little bit more practical – parliaments, political parties and the like – have actually pushed the common man and woman almost entirely out of the picture.

At the last federal election, how included and how powerful did you feel? (No, not you, Clive Palmer)

Average citizens, unless they have the good fortune to live in a marginal seat, often feel as if they are an aside to the political sideshow and completely powerless, creating the cynical and disengaged community so often bemoaned during the last bunch of elections.

The truth is, democracy these days is nothing like the idea it once was. In South Australia, four men (Federal pollies Don Farrell and Mark Butler on the Labor side, and Nick Minchin and Chris Pyne for the Libs) essentially dictate the entire political operations of the state. There are similar set ups across the nation.

These famed faceless men – with power not from the people, but from unions and lobby groups – decide pre-selections, ministerial portfolios and any number of policy matters at a state and federal level.

Two of these backroom maestros expressed outrage last year when that upstarter from the Greens, Adam Bandt, dared suggest politicians consult with their constituents over gay marriage.

Chris Pyne effectively said “I don’t need to be told how to do my job” and Mark Butler’s comments were along the lines of “People voted for me knowing I was from the Labor Party and what our position was on this issue”.

To which I say, to all politicians – the votes you got (and remember it was only a tad over half, preferences included) were gained because people agreed with more of your policies than those from the other lot. Not because we signed up, part and parcel, to everything you have said or will do.

Now, I have one modest suggestion which could return some power back into our hands. I propose that at each election, voters could express an opinion on the political issues of the day. A kind of referendum at every election on the things we care about. For example, each party could put forward four of their policies and those which garner a majority would have to be acted on, regardless of which party won.

So you could vote, for example, to have Tony Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme and Julia Gillard’s National Broadband Network, or to have neither.

This would also have the advantage of forcing politicians to campaign on policy, not personality or catchphrases, to explain their plans to the public. For example, ‘Stop the Boats’ would not be allowed on the ballot paper, but a plan to ‘reopen the Nauru processing centre at a cost of $X’ would be acceptable. And voters wouldn’t be trapped in an either/or paradigm.

Obviously, this idea has many flaws, including how minor parties and independents would be incorporated. But – and I’ll admit it’s a long shot – I have this crazy idea that if we the people start intelligent conversations about how we want democracy to work for us and include us, politicians just might have to follow suit.

So what would you like to change about Australia’s democracy to put some more power in your hands?

48 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      04:49am | 11/02/11

      This is a good idea, but it falls well short of going far enough. Questions on the ballot paper should be initiated by citizen petitions, not by parties, or we’ll just get more of the same.

      Many other states and countries have citizen-initiated referendums, and these work with great success. It’s time we had them here.

    • Paul says:

      08:22am | 11/02/11

      Citizen’s petitions are nothing more than an excuse for minority groups to put crack pot ideas up. You can bet every racist organisation would have a “stop immigration” or “bring back white Australia” proposal. It would be the play thing of religious nutters and bigots.

      The idea in the article is not a bad one, but my greatest fear is that it will still come down to base politics. The NBN is such an issue. On the one side we are told it will revolutionise our internet (but what benefit will that bring?) on the other side we are told it is too expensive and should be done by private companies (anyone see Telstra doing this?) All we get is glib slogans but no information.

      Sadly, true democracy is not achieveable. In Australia we are as close as it comes because everyone has to vote but even some would say that is not democratic if you are forced to vote. But you could go to England where less than 50% vote and the rest complain about the government of the day. Sigh.

    • persephone says:

      05:39am | 11/02/11

      Excuse me, but when WERE the common man and woman (historically) in the picture more than they are now?

      The idea that there was a golden age where politicians were more in touch and the individual had real power is totally mythical.

      For starters, universal suffrage was only achieved at the start of last century. Prior to that, 50% of the population had no say.

      So did that make the early 1900s a time of true representative democracy, when the ordinary person influenced events through their relationship with their elected representative?

      In pre car days - so up until the 1950s - it wasn’t uncommon for parliamentarians who represented the more isolated electorates to not only not live in them, but to have their offices elsewhere as well.

      The lack of cars (which, due to WWII, effectively lasted until the ‘50s) and of telephones meant that, for most people, their only way of influencing events was through the post or newspapers.

      So we can safely say that, at least until the end of World War II, putting pressure on your local MP wasn’t easy.

      As for ‘faceless men’ - you do know where the phrase originated, don’t you?

      In 1963, the Labor leader and deputy leader were photographed standing outside of Labor HQ, waiting for 37 party officials to calll them inside and tell them what to do.

      So the idea that it’s only in recent times that the backroom boys have meddled in political affairs just demonstrates a lack of historical knowledge. (And I’m not sure you even really understand what the term means, given that you use Christopher Pyne, an elected MP with a high profile, as an example of a ‘faceless man’. He isn’t.)

      At present, we can scrutinise our politicians, holding them to account, and comment on events in ways never before dreamt of.

      Not quite twenty years ago, for example, if I heard a politician say something I thought needed following up, I had to ring the relevant TV station, ask for a transcript, and wait several days for it to arrive in the mail before I could determine if they had said what I thought they’d said.

      Now, it’s almost instantly available on the net. In fact, I don’t need to wait for the transcript - I can re watch the relevant interview whenever I want to.

      If what the MP said upset me, I can send an email to his/her office within seconds.

      So feedback to MPs is now almost instantaneous (hell, with twitter, we now have journos proviiding feedback during interviews!)

      We can, if we wish. even more closely monitor our MPs through twitter and other social networking sites. And we can twitter back.

      At no time in history has this two way street of communication been more open.

      I won’t go into (well, not yet, let’s see how the thread develops!) the impracticality of your ideas.

      What I will say is that people have the tools and the ability to make the system work better than it ever has.

      One way of reforming democracy, for example, is for people to actually do what they’re supposed to - scrutinise the candidates and chose who to vote for, not on the basis of their party allegiances, but whether or not they’re going to represent your concerns.

      If you simply pick up your preferred party’s HTV and put a 1 next to someone you’ve never heard of; if you haven’t contacted your MPs office when an issue concerned you and given your opinion and so on - then of course democracy doesn’t work, because you’re not doing your bit.


      There’s a celebrated

    • Mahhrat says:

      07:26am | 11/02/11

      Wow, you got yourself cut off, pers!  By the way, wipe your chin.

    • Kristy says:

      08:00am | 11/02/11

      I agree that there’s never been a golden age, but just because democracy’s always sucked doesn’t mean we can’t work to make it better now.
      And yeah, we can tweet or email our pollies, but you’re kidding youself if you think it makes a difference. My friend who works in a senators office said point blank the other day “[My senator] has no say in the party’s policies”.

    • A.K.A. says:

      08:24am | 11/02/11

      Ok,

      “What I will say is that people have the tools and the ability to make the system work better than it ever has.”

      Why, despite the fact that 75% of NSW want to get rid of our labour government have we been stuck with these muppets despite 4 leaders in as many years?  Why were we powerless to stop them selling state assets, closing roads (think the numerous tunnels) and wasting money over the last 15 years?

      “One way of reforming democracy, for example, is for people to actually do what they’re supposed to”

      Are politicians not people?  What about delivering on what they promise the people?  What about listening to their voters and not necessarily what the party wants? What are we supposed to do when the person you voted in gets knifed and replaced with someone whose views you may totally disagree with?  When this happens, we are essentially fucked until the next election.

      I heard Eric Roozendaal’s mum was listed on Ebay, I’ll try find the link, apparently she had assets worth $3m but you could buy her now for $500.

    • persephone says:

      10:43am | 11/02/11

      Mahhrat

      no, I didn’t - I started a sentence and thought I’d deleted it. Missed it hanging there when I did my final re read, easy to do.

      Kristy

      well, I find that strange. I’m not a senator or anything flash, just a normal party member, and I’ve been able to get policy ideas up (or at least influence the debate).

      So - from my own experience - I know that you can make it work.

      But it involves some degree of effort on your part.

      AKA

      because the Opposition looked even worse last election?

      I’m sorry, but NSW politics is something I stay well away from, so I really don’t know how your consitution works and thus can’t answer your question.

    • Michael says:

      04:31pm | 11/02/11

      If you vote for a party pollie, you are going to get them toeing the party line. You can always vote independant, but that is no guarantee they will work in all the ways YOU want them to - you are one of thousands in the electorate and we need to know our place as such.

      People need to get this idea out of their heads that they can have a direct say in what goes on. We can only lobby our point to our representatives; ultimately it is up to them how they go about being the local voice in Parliament. If we don’t like them, we vote against them at the next election.

      AKA if 75% of NSW’ers wanted to get rid of the current Government, their chance was at the last election. They didn’t, so now they wait for the upcoming one. It’s not rocket surgery.

      If we really want to have more control onwhat goes on, anybody on the electoral roll is able to go through the processes of nominating as a candidate and running for office.

    • Chris L says:

      05:58pm | 11/02/11

      Mahhrat, what’s with the “wipe your chin” statement? I’ve often thought of you and persephone in the same context due to the insightful nature of your posts, and this one from persephone was exemplary. Are you having a go at her simply because she supports a party you do not?

    • Adam Diver says:

      06:59am | 11/02/11

      Imagine the budget if we could vote on NBN, paid parental scheme, tax cuts, increased welfare etc etc.

      How many people would say no to free stuff. I would wager it would be less than a majority.

    • James1 says:

      10:27am | 11/02/11

      That is exactly my objection to such a proposal.  Some people are not intellectually equipped to know what’s best for them and their country.  Such people should not be in a position to make decisions.  Representative democracy fosters a kind of elite consensus that a popular democracy cannot hope to fashion, and thus such populism and short term thinking tends to be eliminated.  At least to a degree.

    • Jill says:

      07:34am | 11/02/11

      As a voter, I not only feel superflous to the whole procedure, I also feel like the politicians who supposedly value my vote think I’m an idiot!! Julia Gillard speaks to me as if I’m a child - a stupid, naughty child. Bob Brown talks to me as if I don’t know what’s good for me….and on it goes.
      Much as I love this idea, it’s getting a foot in the door in the first place. They have us where they want us. Bundled up in suburbia and out of their backyards. The majority of us remain uneducated, particularly in political matters, and uninterested. We just accept our lot and try and make the best of it, and we know that at the next election, we have to try and pick the best of a bad lot….again.

    • grumpy old man says:

      07:38am | 11/02/11

      the simple truth is that democracy, as is popularly portrayed, does not exist, and what we have is the nearest equivalent.
      We have a pseudo democratic system in which groups and organisations, who we did not vote for, control the elected politicians that we did vote for.
      In order to change this in any significant way, we need the concurrence of the very people who have a vested personal interest in maintaining the status quo. Unless we go Egyptian, its not going to change anytime soon!

    • Super D says:

      07:46am | 11/02/11

      Well this is one of those feel good proposals that once again ignores human nature.

      Give people a chance and they will vote for lower taxes (for themselves) and higher spending (on themselves) at the same time resulting in undeliverable positions.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      08:42am | 11/02/11

      That was my immediate thought, also. 
       
      The Citizen Initiated Referendum is a great concept though. It would allow us to get things that BOTH major parties ignore voted on. Muslim immigration would be stopped dead in its tracks and I for one, think this could only be a good thing.

    • A.K.A. says:

      08:47am | 11/02/11

      Riddle me this then SuperD:

      What did our government do for money before:
      - Speed Camera Revenues
      - Poker Machines Revenues
      - Parking Meter Revenues (Ok, not the meters themselves, but the fines)
      - Toll Road Revenues
      - Revenues from selling State Assets
      - The MASSIVE revenues from the sale of property

      Want me to keep going?

      All of these things are taxes, either direct or indirect.  Our government wastes the taxes we pay, so they come up with these things to top up the coffers.

      You wonder why people would vote for lower taxes when:

      - you are encouraged (financially via a levy) to have private health insurance, or you could risk it in the public system. 
      - You could catch public transport, but driving your car (which although takes longer and is more expensive) is your only option or more convenient.
      - You could never afford to buy a house in the city you have grown up in, let alone rent in certain areas
      - And heaven forbid if you were addicted to poker machines, you can’t go to your local pub, RSL or Community Club without having to walk through hundreds of the things (poker machines).  Yep, them “Do you have a gambling problem” stickers are a real comfort when you have just lost your rent money.

      At least the article is an idea.  Although flawed, it is better than any of the ideas which have been implement in the last 15 years by many of the state governments.

    • James1 says:

      11:01am | 11/02/11

      Tony,

      Until someone proposes a referendum on everyone getting $2000 from the government every week…

    • iansand says:

      07:59am | 11/02/11

      Citizen referenda have crippled California.

    • Scotchy says:

      07:59am | 11/02/11

      My old man used to explain communism as “All men are equal, just some are more equal than others”  seems like a good summation of communism to me.

    • A.K.A. says:

      08:30am | 11/02/11

      Sounds like the American version of democracy to me also.

    • Markus says:

      08:14am | 11/02/11

      In this country it seems many would prefer a totalitarian government, as it leaves them not having to perform that oh so onerous task of actually thinking before casting their vote.
      People get the democracy they deserve.

    • Chris L says:

      06:04pm | 11/02/11

      Harsh, but with a ring of truth Markus. If people just sit back and vote for the party they have always voted for I think they lose the right to complain. On the other hand, I have been researching different parties and found some I truly like, but when it comes to the lower house it still ends up being the same 2.5, being Labor, Coalition or (the .5) Greens. Devil, Deep Blue Sea and some crazy hermit with bones tied into his hair.

    • Savant says:

      08:31am | 11/02/11

      Won’t happen.

      The wealthy few dictate to the politicians what to do, and they definitely do not want something like this. Ref: Stephen Conroy flicking a quarter of a BILLION dollar bribe to the Australian television media with no official strings attached. Notice how most of the TV media now present his ideas in a positive manner (if at all), as in the case of the censorship crap he’s trying to push on us.

      The rich, and those supported by businesses (including unions), are the only ones who can afford to run for parliament. They saturate electorates with advertising, to the point where independents have virtually zero chance of getting elected.

      There is almost zero truly altruistic legislation passed in this (or many other) ‘democratic’ nations. It’s all just grabs at voter blocks so the politicians can give themselves and their corporate sponsors some funky perks.

      Totally remove political parties, make a constitutional change that no politician can have more than 2 or 3 terms in office at any level and that they have previously been employed in the real world. Legislate that breaking the rules will result in the harshest sentence possible, for utter betrayal of the voting public. Enforce some form of training (brainwashing could be a better term) where they are reminded that they are the servants of the public, not the masters.

      Alternatively, shoot them all. That’s my preference.

    • Tell It Like It Is says:

      08:31am | 11/02/11

      There will never be a better political system than democracy. Ironic then that so many people feel they have no say. Part of that is due to the representational system in the form of Congress or Parliament. In the beginning in the US for example, it was the best means.  Clearly, every citizen could not, say, get on a horse and trek long distances, across mountains and through the snow to personally place a vote in Washington D.C. But it is baffling that this method has not been upgraded with the availability of the internet. Why do we still use this archaic (and often very long)  paper ballot which must be subject to human errors if not tampering. So cumbersome! There should and could be much more direct involvement by the voter to express concerns or even decide a policy or its implementation about crucial issues via a referendum. And immigration policy is good example!  Ironic too that   while we doggedly stick to this archaic and really unrepresentative system it seems that politicians have changed.  There really are not nor have there been for a long time any truly inspirational leaders in whom you truly can trust the fate of this - or any other western country. And never mind the tax dollar! Generally, they have no specific qualifications or training for the job and, in particular, most often have no more intelligence or insight - especially now with the electronic media - than the average voter. So they are no more capable of making an informed decision and have far more vested intersts. In fact for most of them, their major skill is in getting voted for and looking after their own backs and jobs. To wit, the NSW Labor party MACHINE.  Bring on referenda. Alternatively, just get managers. It was okay - said the politicians - to bring in managers in hospitals rather than have medical experts make decisions about health care!

    • Asrael says:

      08:44am | 11/02/11

      I have worked in Government and I tell you that pollies listen to community noise. Get your group going (new school, retain a hospital, object to a new church, etc) and keep it up. Find people in your community who feel the same way. Get into the local paper. Contact your MPs (State and Federal, upper and lower - that’s 4) and canvas them for support. I have seen so many community groups achieve their goal by sheer persistence and noise, and by creating a feeling that other people in the community feel the same way but just haven’t joined. Like TV channels assume that for every LETTER (not email as it’s too easy) they get, another 100 people are grumbling but just haven’t put pen to paper.
      Political change is possible by grassroots action. i cite the Australia card and the anti-Vietnam war rallies as shining examples. So, don’t whinge about having no voice, do something!

    • Richard says:

      08:58am | 11/02/11

      Democracy is bunk! People are not responsible, they are greedy. They will vote for whoever promises them the most handouts (using other people’s money), and once the welfare mentality is entrenched, people will never vote to relinquish it. That’s were all the debt problems in Western nations around the world come from, politicians that need to promise more than their opponents in order to get re-elected, spending money that doesn’t exist, or that has to be stolen from the “rich” (in reality its not the rich, the truly rich don’t pay taxes, it comes from the hard-working educated professional upper-middle classes).

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:45am | 11/02/11

      +1, I actually agree with you for once.

    • Chris L says:

      06:07pm | 11/02/11

      Lower class people pay less tax, but there’s a damn site more of them. Apart from that, I agree with Richard.

    • Chris M says:

      08:58am | 11/02/11

      What you are proposing would force one political party to implement the policies of another political party, an entirely impractical proposition. 

      With how much enthusiasm do you think the Labor party would implement the Liberal party’s immigration policies, for example, if it were forced to do so?  If the policies then didn’t work, who would be held accountable, the Liberals for introducing the policy or the Labor party for it’s implementation?

      The second problem with that proposal is that many policies are complex and can’t be reduced to simple one line propositions that the voters can say “yes” or “no” to.  For example, the Pacific Solution contained a range of interlocking measures, one of which was the opening of a detention centre in Nauru.  If one element was removed then the whole policy might fall down.  Should voters be expected to vote on every aspect of a policy like that?

      The fact is we elect politicians to make those decisions, and hold them accountable for their results every three or four years.  That system should remain.

    • Savant says:

      09:25am | 11/02/11

      But we, as a nation, don’t hold politicians accountable. How many died-in-the-wool Labor or Liberal supporters do you know? The ones who will support their ‘team’ regardless of what they do?

      Those people are a big reason that Australia (and many other countries) don’t have anything even approximating democracy. Because the parties know that they can act like dicks and still get a ton of votes.

      Me? I hate both Labor and Liberal, but there is literally nothing that I can do about removing them from their positions. No matter how I vote, it just disappears into thin air because it’s not going to one of the two most corrupt and self-serving parties.

      Disenfranchised? Hell yes.

    • @CraigLambie says:

      09:14am | 11/02/11

      Check out this idea I posted on Facebook a while back…
      Plenty of opportunity to improve the democratic process I think.

      Aims:
      To enable a true representation on the Communities real point of view, and enable a transparent system of viewing the community’s point of view on an issue.
      To centralise the systems of Government and allow communities to show their points of view in one place on an issue, whether it be Local, State, Federal or International (only Australian Registered voters will be able to register for this system)
      To enable individual issues to be discussed by the broader community, and for information providers (News/Internet etc) to direct the community to an issue to allow their opinion to be heard.
      To ensure each and every member of the community has access to the system to ensure a broad section of the community can have its say.

      Solution:
      An objectively controlled Online based system that allows Voters to register.
      (Could be considered a Social Network ordained by the Government)
      Each registered voter can register onto the system (one vote, one registration)

      The system will have a list of all current issues in discussion by the parliament (Bills/Issues etc)
      A list of the committees/ MPs that are overseeing the discussion, who raised it, who supports it etc
      A forum for discussion on each individual issue.
      A UML type map of how this issue fits into the bigger picture. A visible display of what other options this issue would effect.
      For example increasing spending on more beds for the aged, means less beds for the younger generations.
      Ability to vote on each individual issue
      Ability to Create an Issue, and get support for the issue to be raised in Parliament, and create a parliamentary issue from this interest.

      Accessibility:
      Majority of Registered Voters must be able to Access the system.
      A requirement that Issues are published in all newspapers (Supplement published weekly) and spoken on a regular basis in all Licensed Media – Major Newspapers, Local Newspapers, News, etc. (Could be legislated into the Licensing agreement)
      Web based Media can provide links to individual issues. For example The Age online could provide a link to the current issue in its opinion section.
      ISPs, Web access points would be required to allow access to this website at no cost.
      Libraries, Government buildings and other community centres could have “pods” to allow access.
      People can then write in via Letter or Fax, and have their views published (less their identity) Faxes/Letters would be scanned, and votes input by objective third party organisation. (All identities can be completely controlled, however you can only ever vote once on an issue during each debate period)
      Audit Trail – Random verification of correctness of voting position on issues based on letters/ faxes. All letters archived and linked to votes with Voter Registration Details, date/ time issue number etc.

      Types of Issues:
      Parliamentary Issues would be open for discussion for 1 month. After this term, the issue is then closed for Parliamentary discussion, and reopened for 1 month to allow for comments on amendments by Politicians.
      Community Created Issues would have 1 month to gain support from the community and then it would be up to politicians to decide on popular issues.

      Benefits
      This system would allow politicians the ability to release policies for public consultation, and gauge support for each individual issue. This would therefore allow them to actually measure the communities support or opposition for each individual issue, policy or bill that is currently being debated in parliament.
      Also allowing the community to show support for issues that are not being debated in parliament, and raising awareness for these issues (or showing them to be opposed by the broader community)
      Actually see statistics from a broad section of the community on any individual issue.
      Recognise when an issue has a community interest.

      Potential Problems with System
      People over a certain age are not technically knowledgably
      - Allow for Letters/ Faxes with Voter Registration details
      - Fill in a form and send it in (OCR Technology used to save labour cost)
      - Personalised voting forms could be acquired from all Government Buildings free of charge, or printed out for you by your technical adept family member
      Not everyone has access the internet
      - Issues are published, with Issue Number/ Identifier regularly in local publications at all levels of community
      Politicians would be out of a job
      - Someone would still have to create the issues, show support for them, lead, represent, make decisions in tough times, etc. (Maybe just a few less egotistical popular pollies, and a few more truly “for the people” pollies)

    • Rose says:

      10:06am | 11/02/11

      Wouldn’t it be al lot easier if Australians just utilized all the opportunities they already have to make their views known. Letters to politicians, emails, petitions, phone calls etc all make a difference. You might not force change in every issue, but politicians are only ever as accountable as we make them. If Australians stop being so apathetic change will happen, it’s just that Australians have to force that change, no-one will do it for them.

    • GregS says:

      02:16pm | 11/02/11

      hi craig,
      i was about to post a similar idea, but in a much more ham-fisted way. i think its bloody great: power, and responsibility shifting to the populace. sadly, i can’t really see any lib or labor government implimenting such a system and giving up so much power. if a new political party proposed such a system of governing they’d win an election hands down i reckon. cheers for your post.

    • Amber says:

      09:59am | 11/02/11

      I always felt the only truly communist country was Israel in its fledgling days…people working voluntarily for the common good.  And our so-called Democracy has come down to forced voting and all promises being declared null and void immediately after being elected.
      I would suggest to fix this, every broken promise results in reduced days in power…according to level of importance. It’s about time they were held accountable.

    • James1 says:

      11:46am | 11/02/11

      An old friend who was a Communist Party member once (he quit in 1956 for obvious reasons) spent some time in a kibbutz in 1949.  They had a shop where everyone could take whatever they needed as they needed it, including alcohol and cigarettes.  There were many fellow kibbutzim that would still hoard alcohol and cigarettes as luxury items, despite the fact they could take as many as they needed from the free shop.

    • LJ says:

      10:13am | 11/02/11

      How can we truly live in a democracy if we don’t popularly elect our leaders? The only leader I have directly voted for is my Mayor, and I know not all councils have this practice due to the ward-system.
      What we should be doing is get rid of faux-democratic institutions like the upper houses and the senate, and use that money to completely separate the executive from the legislature. This bullshit of having ministers come from the lower house, muddles the process and eliminates any form of separation of power. Real democracy would be having a leadership debate with more than just 2 leaders, and the ability for them to select their own cabinet (professionals not party hacks)
      I would finally add that the irony is that the place where democracy is most heightened (Local Government) is the place that shouldn’t be. Councils should be run by the State Government, placed under administration by a General Manager appointed by an independent board. What does a Mayor and Councillors do aside from citizenship ceremonies and opening up parks?
      The argument against democracy would be the aspect of buck-passing. Councils and the State are constantly claiming powers over one another and then when they don’t want to deal with something they push it to the other institution

    • Markus says:

      12:09pm | 11/02/11

      The current system only exists because voters have allowed it to exist.
      I would have no issue with our current Westminster system, so long as people actually used it in the manner it was intended.

      If every voter voted for a local candidate based entirely on what benefit that person can provide to their electorate (and ONLY their electorate), the two party system would become redundant.

      See Bob Katter as a prime example. The media have done their very best to make him appear like a crazy uneducated redneck, but like a true MP should he does everything he can to better his electorate, and his poll results reflect that.

      When people continually vote for a candidate who they know in advance will tow the party line, they only have themselves to blame when that candidate does not listen to them or represent their electorate.

    • Syl says:

      10:31am | 11/02/11

      While I agree that the system requires serious investigation, I can’t agree with the proposal put forward here.  If we voted on each policy seperately, and implemented the popular ones from either party, why bother having parties at all?  They become pretty useless if they are unable to govern and have to implement policies they may be opposed to.  Logistically I can’t see it working either, working out a budget would be a nightmare.  What about policies brought in mid term?  Do we have a referendum everytime someone wants to do anything?

      We need a way to make the government more answerable to the people, but I don’t think this is the way to go.

    • Savant says:

      11:03am | 11/02/11

      “...why bother having parties at all?” Oh yes please! I think that would be a most glorious end in itself. I can’t understand why anyone would think that it would be a bad thing.

      Do you agree with everything that your preferred party wants to do? If you do, you’d be in the tiny minority. Why can’t you deviate from the party line?

    • Syl says:

      12:32pm | 11/02/11

      So.. with no parties, who would we elect?  Would we elect anyone?  Would we elect one person (recipe for disaster), If not, how is it a democracy?  Does every party get 4 ideas each?  Do I have to fill out a 40 page document when I vote to address each idea?  What happens to mid-term policy changes?

      I dont agree with everything my “preferred” party does, never said I did.  I do seem to remember saying that I believe government should be more answerable to the people, surely this would indicate that I dont agree with everything “my” party does.  I am just saying I don’t believe that the proposed system of governing is workable.

      Im not entirely sure what your point was.

    • Markus says:

      03:21pm | 11/02/11

      @Syl, with no parties, the person you elect is the same person you should be electing in our current system anyway: the person who will act in the best interests of your electorate.

      It is then up to them to put forward proposals in parliament that not only benefit their electorate, but would benefit enough other MPs’ electorates to gain a majority vote.
      That, or present a very compelling argument to MPs whose electorate it wouldn’t necessarily benefit.

      This is how a Westminster democracy is supposed to work, not the sham we have today.

    • Gavin says:

      05:05pm | 11/02/11

      I really really really want a Parliament of 150 independants chaotically squabbling over Bills like hens squabbling over chicken feed. I really really really want Legislation taking months and years to pass through the House because 150 different individuals have 150 different ideas. And I really really really want the process of Government formation after the election to be finalised days before the next election is due because 150 individuals can’t vote on a Cabinet.

      But most of all, I really really really want to see a system where although political parties are supposedly banned, a majority swill of so-called independants join hands to form a Government and vote in bloc for each other in a back-scratching exercise. Like a politcal party. Except not. Because political parties would be banned afer all.

    • Darragh Scully says:

      02:09pm | 11/02/11

      Monopoly on power is nothing new. Who will complain about us once we are the power in the New Republic. I dunno?
      Why do you need extra statistics. What we really really need to do is Gerrymander so that things go our way. The only thing that I dont like about this whole agenda thing is that I wasnt born here but I am here, know what I am saying. Yes I can have two passports though that only matters because it makes me feel like a spy for the secret service right but I cant be President (that is)?

      “These famed faceless men – with power not from the people, but from unions and lobby groups – decide pre-selections, ministerial portfolios and any number of policy matters at a state and federal level.”

      Are they able to Gerrymander to?
      You know I am joining the dots and starting to think that this republican movement, ie new flag, new anthem, new head of States, is the equivilent of the Centrists movement.

    • Servaas says:

      10:53pm | 11/02/11

      It was Churchill who said that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter and I fully agree, people shouldn’t be allowed to have too a big influence on where the country is heading policy wise.Can you imagine the disaster? I also thought referendums are the way to go but it could easily destroy a country. Let the ones who ahve proven their worth and been around do the decision-making. You might not like it but it will always be better than 100?mocratic chaos.

    • buckleboo says:

      07:45pm | 12/02/11

      is it really democracy when the country is being held to ransom by a few nut job independents..

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      12:34am | 13/02/11

      Hi Danielle,

      I spent most of childhood and some of my childhood years living right next door to the old Soviet Union and Eastern Block “Iron Curtain” countries.  Having read most of the Russian classics by Tolstoy and Dostoyevski, message of Communism to me was all about “total and utter misery”.  And that is all!! 

      And my question to today is “what is the big sell about so called democracy anyway”?? What are we trying to sell and what is the big picture we are so eager to paint”??  I would be ready to settle for a society where there is no hunger, suffering, better job prospects and incentives to work hard for almost everyone and I mean for that for everyone, if that is possible at all.  Instead of talking about having the almost perfect democracy and what it might bring into our lives.  “I would like to be able to live it and taste it”, instead of talking endlessly about it.  Best regards to your editors.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Daniel Piotrowski

@apiotrowski I feel your pain #workingtheweekend

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter