How well is Australia served by our democratic system?

[lopes]

My opinion on the above post is best summed up by Winston Chruchill:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston Chruchill
The best argument against democracy is to spend 5 minutes with the average voter.:

I agree, and the last 10 years is a perfect example - especially since Pauline Hanson came on the scene.

 

[Matt H]

Define democracy.

Uhh, are you sure you should be posting things like that from over there?

 

[demo man]

I am using the below as my definition of a liberal democracy, which is what I am led to beleive we have in australia.

A liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals. It also places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities

I'm focussing on just a few points:

Representative democracy.
- Hadly. Generally speaking, elected pollies represent their parties rather than their electorate. Same as we vote for a party rather than the local individual.

Rule of Law
- Probably a strong point in the Aussie system

Constraint
- IR laws don't seem constrained
- Refugee policy certainly allows majority opinion to cause great harm to a minority
- Senate has been a main mechanism for constraint, but now Govt. has power there also
- No bill of rights or anything similar (legally, there is nothing to say trhat we are all equal before the law, for example.)

People
- suck.
- opinions not equal etc.

 

[Vicious_Fishes]

imo the fact that all opinions are considered equal is what the problem is, i don't like it.

 

[johnny]

Uhh, are you sure you should be posting things like that from over there?

Surprisingly it's not an issue..., being that they have "Chinese Democracy" over here.

People vote in their local governence, some are not CCP, but most are or sign up when voted in. These people then vote amongst themselves for leaders of this and that all the way up the chain to party president and prime minister. Much of this is a recent development that has been rolling across the country for around the last decade, I think. Would have to check the timeline to be sure how long.

The idea is basicaly the same, you vote in some one who represents your values and if they do well for your area they get promoted as far as their worth will take them. Within the Party and the Government, there are different factions, ideologies and power bases. China may be authoritarian but it is by no means totalitairian. I'm unsure whether you could name it a dictatorship, benevolent as it would be so. Mainly because whilst the Party Chairman and the head of the PLA/Defence are the real power seats, I'm confident that they are not all powerful and that the Politburo (9 ppeople if I remember correctly) can resist and influence much. This, along with other beuraucratic positions and especilly market forces displays an arrangement of alternate forces meaning that no single entity dictates policy.

It's interesting to see, being that I'm not sure if the western world has a clear picture of what life is like over here. Granted, neither do I. I haven't travelled and experienced enough to know 100%. But, I have all the trappings of a modern life here, disregarding actual national security issues that any country faces, I'm free to go where ever I please. The place is not crawling with army and secret police....other than Tiananmen square of course. And I can freely sit here and discuss politics without fear of persecution.

The only things that are blocked ont he net that I can find is BBC and Wikipeadia. It surprised me about the BBC being blocked because whatever info their discussing, so will CNN, NY Times and the Age/Morning Herald. and it also surprises me a little because it actually makes the government look weak, as if they have less influence over their people than one net site does (you got that boys? Good, tell your boss Hu I said he's a pussy for being scared of the BBC!). I'm assuming that it is this way because of a difference of opinion concerning the Tiananmen Sqare incident.

Anyway, that's 1) a glimpse at Chinese Democracy and 2) an idea of what freedoms China shares with the western world.

 

[scblack]

........................
Anyway, that's 1) a glimpse at Chinese Democracy and 2) an idea of what freedoms China shares with the western world.

I will be quite facetious and say, that it is amazing what changes a lot of money will bring.

China is well known as the factory of the world these days, and the amount of investment dollars, and industry brought to China has opened their eyes a huge amount.

Being rich little buggers beats being a Dictator, it seems.

 

[Dumbellina]

...it also surprises me a little because it actually makes the government look weak, as if they have less influence over their people than one net site does (you got that boys? Good, tell your boss Hu I said he's a pussy for being scared of the BBC!). I'm assuming that it is this way because of a difference of opinion concerning the Tiananmen Sqare incident.

Careful there we don't Farkin blocked by the CCP.

 

[scblack]

Funny you mention that, I was just at a seminar given by a leading academic in participatory research who asked the same rhetorical question - well it was rhetorical until he proferred some examples.

Western democracy thinks of democracy as the government acting on the legitimacy of the majority of the population based on the outcome of regular elections - that being voted is the mandate to make decisions on the population's behalf for what they see as the interests of that majority. [As an aside does the compulsion to vote limit the democratic merit of elections?]

He was talking about self-government at the local level, particular Indigenous self-government. Democracy in that context means government by consultation and consensus-building. The struggle that we see in many places around the world, not only in Indigenous communities but many local communities, is the mismatch between "national interest" in the Western democratic sense (ie that of the interest of the nation-state) and communal interest where the community must pay the price for this national interest.

The example he gave was the proposal to mine uranium on Indigenous lands in Eastern India (sound familiar?). The Indian government has compulsorially acquired these lands, in the "national interest" ie nuclear power and nuclear weapons, and the residents are being forced off the land with little or no compensation. The residents argue that their sense of democracy has been usurped by a foreign sense of democracy of the kind pushed by the nation state.

So for Australia, we see that tension between local government and state and federal governments. Local government arguably has a greater mandate (and more democratic) because they are dealing directly with their clients on a daily basis, and councillors are elected from residents. Local government decision making is certainly more partipicatory than state or federal government. People respond directly to local government decisions because it affects their sense of community in a local environment sense, planning decisions are in the papers everyday for this reason. But state and federal governments aren't even close to being as a accountable for their decision-making. Effectively, state government regulates the activity of local government to make sure that it is effective and democratic - and not a developer-friendly council (eg Tweed), and the Federal government regulates local government by controlling grants for essential local government activities, like roads, community infrastructure, etc.

So I define what happens at the local level as being closer to democracy than the so-called mandate state and federal governments get from their regular (not frequent) elections.

Sounds all nice and cosy in theory.

But I will put money on the fact that there is more corruption and graft in local councils and politics than any other level of government.

Property zoning and development approvals would have to contain FAR MORE incidences of improper conduct than any other governmental level.

Also, recently matters such as Warringah Council being sacked on the northern beaches of Sydney (five years ago, or so) show the conduct of local government as being very poor.


It might sound nice IN THEORY to think local government is all democratic, but IN PRACTICE I think that is far from the truth.

 

[red death]

In my council they circulate the mayoralship (can that be a word?) amongst the councillors of the controlling party depending on which councillor is standing at the next state/federal election.

Gives 'em better exposure. Democracy - yeah right...

 

[Dumbellina]

Sounds all nice and cosy in theory.

But I will put money on the fact that there is more corruption and graft in local councils and politics than any other level of government.

Property zoning and development approvals would have to contain FAR MORE incidences of improper conduct than any other governmental level.

Also, recently matters such as Warringah Council being sacked on the northern beaches of Sydney (five years ago, or so) show the conduct of local government as being very poor.


It might sound nice IN THEORY to think local government is all democratic, but IN PRACTICE I think that is far from the truth.

The reason I don't think local government works well in the current system is because of the lack of real accountability to their community, and the meddling of state and federal governments above them.

Corruption and poor adminstration occurs because people let it. Sure ICAC names and shames wrongdoers and a few get prosecuted, and the Minister for Local Government can appoint administrators, but these mechanisms rely on people complaining about the performance of their council. If council makes a bad planning decision there are ample ways to have it reviewed, besides letters to the paper and local protest movements.

The main problem is that come voting time, people are generally disengaged with the performance of their local councillors. They whinge and moan about rates and charges, bad planning decisions, poor community infrastructure, but few actually blame the councillors who are making decisions on their behalf.

There are some excellent committed councillors out there, but there are also a bucketload of party hacks wishing they were somewhere else and developer's friends who only care when "mates" developments come up for approval. There are also council staff who work freaking hard and are committed to serving their communities, but this is too easily undermined by ineffective councillors (or overpaid council executives).

The idea of the ward system is that councillors represent their local (or sub-local) communities. Who communicate with residents in their ward, who understand local issues and local sentiment. Instead we get much less than that; I don't even know who my ward councillors are.

There is also requirement for councillors to possess certain skills, knowledge or experience, yet we charge them with making critical decisions that effects the entire community. Few councillors understand planning rules and local government rules, and in the absence of good quality advice from council staff it is little wonder councils fall into maladministration. Some councils are so wracked with factionalism that they can't make a decision even where they have that good advice and assistance from council staff.

This is where democracy at the local level fails, because instead of there being deliberation and consensus-building by elected councillors prior to any council meeting on significant issues, it is run according to party politics or the individual opinion of the councillor.

As for state and federal interference - the Minister for Local Government uses rate caps to prevent councils raising rates above a set amount (12% in the latest cap) except in exceptional circumstances. This is fine but some councils have to meet expenses providing community infrastructure over and above the limit placed on it by the Minister. For example, rate concessions are granted to residents over 60 means many local governments in rural and "sea-change" areas have little revenue and yet have ballooning costs with providing community infrastructure for older people.

The federal interference is in the form of tied grants - the Feds give money, say for local roads, in return for the local government doing something else, flying the Australian flag (for example). The state government places similar conditions on grants to local government.

The other interference is the form of usurping council power. Part 3A planning powers which were transferred from Councils to the Planning Minister for major developments is the classic example. It essentially robs local people of influencing the development decision, which is utterly undemocratic.

Of course there is more graft and corruption in local government because there are more local governments (about 70 odd in NSW) than state (seven) and federal (one) governments and more councillors and council staff to can recieve corrupt payments (or even sex in lieu of $). But that doesn't mean it is less democratic overall. ICAC does a lot of investigations into a lot of councils, councillors and council staff, but they are still only a very small proportion of all councils, councillors and council staff.

 

[johnny]

I will be quite facetious and say, that it is amazing what changes a lot of money will bring.

China is well known as the factory of the world these days, and the amount of investment dollars, and industry brought to China has opened their eyes a huge amount.

Being rich little buggers beats being a Dictator, it seems.

I would even go as far to say that it's not the money that has changed things, it's the failure of Communism that bought the money. That money has bought greater stability and legitimacy to the central authority and now they have the ball their running with it. A lot of people thought that the enlargement of the middle class would bring about greater education/travel/worldiness and thusly a demand for democracy. But it seems they were wrong and completly western centric in their analysis. If people are getting rich and prosperous and the government is progressively minimising its influence in the private sphere, why would the people want change? They're getting what they want without having to take resposnibility like we in western liberal democratic countries do.

So I think that money has changed the people and the government are the ones, thanks to Deng Jiao Ping and Hu Jintao, that keep this ball rolling..., of course in short to strengthen their legitimacy. tHe second the ball stops rolling is the moment people will push for change.

Careful there we don't Farkin blocked by the CCP.

I'm purposefuly seeing how far I can push this. My bet is that there will be no problem. If there is, you won't see Farkin blocked until they've apprended me. But, I'm obviously sympathetic to the majority of their macro policies so I can't see any reason for them to trouble themselves with me.

 

[johnny]

Will post points as I read it. All views are open to interpretation and argument of course.

1) the suffering of our aboriginals had nothing to do with the formation of our democracy. Australia was not a federated nation until 1901. Before that it was a group of separate british colonies. Thus meaning that the suffering of our original inhabitants was about colonisation, not democratic formation.

2) we do have representative democracy. Yes, the officials we elect are for our electorate, not a party. But they campaign on the platform of representing their party's values for the electorate. There is no secret about this and people are essentially voting for PM and cabinet by electing one of his supporters in their area. There are always a plethora of independents one may choose if they wish. I don't like party politics either, but there is definately a rationale behind it.

3) If you're going to quote some one, make sure you acknowledge them. If you don't know who said it, still acknowledge that it is not your original thought.

4) When talking about democracy you may also wish to mention the separation of powers and the "fourth estate", being a free and open media.

 

[Dumbellina]

1) the suffering of our aboriginals had nothing to do with the formation of our democracy. Australia was not a federated nation until 1901. Before that it was a group of separate british colonies. Thus meaning that the suffering of our original inhabitants was about colonisation, not democratic formation.

His argument was democracy at the traditional community level (Indigenous communities were his example, but equally apply to other small community modes of governance) is about consultation and consensus building. The western notion of democracy is more focussed on the views and what is in the best interests of the majority. This is where the "suffering" occurs, when the majority imposes their will on a minority, who through their democratic processes have arrived at an opposing view, to the detriment of the minority. There are many many examples, typically related to dam building and mining projects forcibly evicting residents. The proposed Mary River Dam in Queensland is a good contemporary example of this.

2) we do have representative democracy. Yes, the officials we elect are for our electorate, not a party. But they campaign on the platform of representing their party's values for the electorate. There is no secret about this and people are essentially voting for PM and cabinet by electing one of his supporters in their area. There are always a plethora of independents one may choose if they wish. I don't like party politics either, but there is definately a rationale behind it.

Agree that "independents" are on the ballot (and many are bankrolled by special interests like developers) and usually get up in local government elections. Even in a few cases at State and Federal level. We also have many smaller parties like the Greens, Christian democrats, etc to choose from.

But the best they can do is be "players" in the upper houses to block or allow the government's legislation, and occassionally throw a Bill or two of their own into the mix.

The simple fact is it is a two-party system with the party with the most bums on seats in the lower house controls and is the government. Regardless of how many people vote Green, Fred Nile or independent, until there is no party with a clear majority and coalition government will have to be formed.

3) If you're going to quote some one, make sure you acknowledge them. If you don't know who said it, still acknowledge that it is not your original thought.

Not sure if it's me you're talking about...Most of my theoretical basis comes from administrative law studies and work experience.

4) When talking about democracy you may also wish to mention the separation of powers and the "fourth estate", being a free and open media.

See my earlier posts... This is where Responsible Government breaks down through - CEO performance contracts, cabinet secrecy, Freedom from Information laws.

 

[demo man]

Just in case you didn't know this dumbella, I posted up a word doc of my notes which I promptly deleted, that was what Johnny was refering to.

I did the speech today, and atached are the notes I used. They're only a rough guide for what I said though, there was a bit more flesh to it, and in a few cases I said something completely different to the notes (i.e. I made up a new example to prove something etc.)

Went well, I had more questions afterwards than any other speech, which I think is a good thing, it means that people were paying attention and were interested (which for a lot of the other presentations was not the case). I was happy with how I went.

Peace

 

[johnny]

His argument was democracy at the traditional community level (Indigenous communities were his example, but equally apply to other small community modes of governance) is about consultation and consensus building. The western notion of democracy is more focussed on the views and what is in the best interests of the majority. This is where the "suffering" occurs, when the majority imposes their will on a minority, who through their democratic processes have arrived at an opposing view, to the detriment of the minority. There are many many examples, typically related to dam building and mining projects forcibly evicting residents. The proposed Mary River Dam in Queensland is a good contemporary example of this.

As Demo said, I was refering to a specific line in his paper.

Agree that "independents" are on the ballot (and many are bankrolled by special interests like developers) and usually get up in local government elections. Even in a few cases at State and Federal level. We also have many smaller parties like the Greens, Christian democrats, etc to choose from.

But the best they can do is be "players" in the upper houses to block or allow the government's legislation, and occassionally throw a Bill or two of their own into the mix.

The simple fact is it is a two-party system with the party with the most bums on seats in the lower house controls and is the government. Regardless of how many people vote Green, Fred Nile or independent, until there is no party with a clear majority and coalition government will have to be formed.

Yep, but the point I was refering to was that the elected party members are more loyal and answer to their party rather than the electorate that voted them in. My response is that people don't really vote for the member in this case, they vote for him because he represents the party's professed values. How's that for an extremely sexist reply?!

Not sure if it's me you're talking about...Most of my theoretical basis comes from administrative law studies and work experience.

Nah, not talking about you and was barking up the wrong tree anyway.

 

[Dumbellina]

His argument was democracy at the traditional community level (Indigenous communities were his example, but equally apply to other small community modes of governance) is about consultation and consensus building. The western notion of democracy is more focussed on the views and what is in the best interests of the majority. This is where the "suffering" occurs, when the majority imposes their will on a minority, who through their democratic processes have arrived at an opposing view, to the detriment of the minority. There are many many examples, typically related to dam building and mining projects forcibly evicting residents. The proposed Mary River Dam in Queensland is a good contemporary example of this.

Still, do you agree with that statement?

 

[demo man]

I'll also throw in the fact that Aboriginals weren't treated as citizens in any way (couldn't vote etc.) until 1967....

I ended up saying something like "Although technicaly the suffering of Aboriginals started before 1901 when Australia become a Federation, it did not finish then either, some would say it is still yet to finished."

 

[johnny]

Still, do you agree with that statement?

Of course. That's another problem with a democracy. 49.99% can miss out on what they want. That's effectively half. By definition of majority rules, there will always be a suffering sector in society.

Democracy does not equal equality. But, is that a bad thing? Communism never equalled equality either if it needs to be said..., and I don't mean in practical terms either.

 

[demo man]

Democracy does not equal equality. But, is that a bad thing. Communism never equalled equality either if it needs to be said..., and I don't mean in practical terms either.

so, socialism then?

 

[johnny]

Democratic socialism, thank you

Hello Sweden.