The question I am posing today, refers to our system of Government, and do we, Australians or do the Americans have a better system of Government? Currently in Australia, many people would strongly argue that our system of Government has let the people down, given the perception that the Parliamentary Standards (especially in the Federal Lower House) have been slipping. Furthermore, the unenlightened voting public believe a massive wrongdoing has been set against them, with the possibility of a Prime Minister Leadership spill every other week - or so it seems. The style of electing governing officials in America is fairly different to our standard ''only-pick-your-immediate-representative-from-a-prescribed-list" soirée Australia has bought into. There are pros and cons to each Political System and I plan to scratch the surface some more.
Despite the massive 'let down' of a Leadership spill within the Federal Labor Party the day of the last sitting day before the Autumn break, the aftermath would suggest differently. The carnage currently stands at 8 Ministers resigning or being fired from the Governments Front Bench. Many of which, publicly came out on the Thursday advocating the need for a Leadership Ballot, and of whom, all are avid Rudd supporters. While some people saw and described this 'purging' of the Cabinet as just another example, in a long list stacking up against the Government, might this further Cabinet Reshuffle be seen as a good thing? All I am saying is that, despite our Prime Minister showing her 'feisty' and tough exterior, it doesn't help to be surrounded with people who are categorical friends and not foes ... right?
The imperfect separation of power seen in the Australian Political System is further cause to rejoice in the effectiveness of our system, when comparing it to the American Style, and yet many Australians forget how much our Parliament has done and is capable of. The Executive and the Legislature are intricately woven, with the Government's Front Bench making up the Executive Cabinet (barring the Governor General). Unlike in the United States, where the President and his (or her) Cabinet are excluded from Congress, and are forced to push their own Political Agenda from the White House and not Capitol Hill. Furthermore, given the perfect separation of power, the President cannot decide the legislative agenda in the House of Representatives, like the Prime Minister and Cabinet do in Australia. Hence the Prime Minister of Australia has more domestic control over political affairs than the President does, as her (or his) direct involvement in the Parliament allows them to do so.
For example, unless the President's party is in the majority in congress, their ability to create legislation becomes highly improbable, and in cases like this a 'watered down' version of legislation would be the only hope of success. Now think about the current Political Climate in Australia (possibly forgoing the last fortnight or so), despite the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate, the ALP Government has been quite successful in its legislative outcome. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the bills, the ALP have been able to pass some major reforms, including the MRRT (Minerals Resource Rent Tax), Tax on Carbon (Clean Energy Futures Package) and the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) despite the hostility of the Senate and Minority Coalition with the Independents and Green in the House.
Saying all that however, one of the major flaws voters speak about in Australia, comes from the party-room or caucus electing the head of each Major Party rather than the people themselves. Despite the constitution having no mention of a Prime Minister or a Cabinet these things exist, obviously, but with no recognition of these offices come no solid way of electing people to these roles. This again, contrasts to how the United States operates, as they have primary elections in each State before the General Election to elect the representatives the people want, as well as the Presidential Candidates. It is an interesting concept to imagine, and with voluntary voting in the US it is a wonder people turn out twice to vote on their own accord. Another major difference is the voluntary versus compulsory voting idea. The argument for compulsory voting being, it forces the public (who are an Australian Citizen and over 18) to vote and to have some input onto the running of the country. Whereas advocates for voluntary voting say that in a democracy it is up to the people to decide whether or not they participate.
So the debate about who has a better system of Government is still a contested issue while the grass supposedly always looks greener on the other side, sometimes we should just be grateful for what we have. Neither country has major civil unrest or extreme poverty like other countries and yes no one could have predicted the state of either economy before the GFC, but still maybe we should just take a step back and think about what we could lose if the Political System changed. I am definitely not saying if Australia became a Republic and elected out Head of State, there would be rioting in the street, and many people say it is time for Australia to become a Republic, but I am saying think about how good we have it before we critisise the Australian Political System. As honestly it could be much much worse! And remember there is nothing wrong with changing the Political System, but do it for the right reasons and not just because the perception of the US system is better than what we have now.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
The big day nothing happened!
So, umm, this is not the blog post I was intending to write this evening. I had planned to discuss political ideologies or the Federal Constitution and whether is still serves its intended purpose. But alas, after the day some of us have had, it only seems right to try and digest the events that surrounded Parliament House today. So here goes...
When Collingwood and Saint Kilda drew in the 2010 AFL Grand Final, immediately after the game there was a sense of shock which quickly spilled into a quite eery feeling of nothing. Not dread a such. Not sadness per se. Definitely not happiness, but a feeling of 'what the hell just happened?' Speaking to a pair who attended the game, they remarked at just how silent the walk out of the MCG was. Saints and Collingwood fans equally depressed with the fact NOTHING happened. After the build up of Grand Final week the outcome (that week) bore no resemblance to the expectedness of what should have happened. What was expected. And the fans walking out of the MCG together that fateful day, were in mutual agony at the result. With that in mind, going to sleep tonight feels a lot like the Grand Final Draw.
Most people went to bed last night wondering if and what would happen today and/or tomorrow. It was the huge stampeding white elephant in the room/chamber/house and everyone - from Political Journalist/Commentator to average person on the street had an opinion on whether or not the Prime Minister should still be PM, or in fact resign/step down and make way for. The so called 'facts' were that SOMETHING would happen in regards to the Labor Leadership it would just be a matter of when and by whom, rather than if and maybe. Well not only does it turn out everyone was so epically wrong, the IT this everyone was talking about didn't even happen. In a whirlwind day in the hallowed halls of Parliament House in Canberra, the leadership spill that was supposed to mark the end of the Gillard Government never even made it passed speculation as caucus didn't bring forward another candidate.
My newly acquired book 'The Rise of the Ruddbot - OBSERVATIONS FROM THE GALLERY' by ABC's Annabel Crabb (so far) has depicted the last months in office for the Howard Government. Hilariously humorous but not completely earth shattering. However the thing that strikes me as fabulous is, that the way Crabb describes Howard, is the same way the media now is portraying Gillard. Deeply unpopular yet still somehow able to retain leadership. Another non political example is in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, one of the main themes specific to that book is History repeating itself, which effectively is what is going on here. Granted Howard's demise, came after, over a decade in the Prime Ministership and the current state of politics looks set to dispose of Gillard after one 'outright' term.
The contest for the Labor Leadership, which has been bubbling for a long while now, finally spilled over again this week, after the ALP looked set to try and rush through Media Reform Bills before the Autumn Recess (which starts when Parliament adjourns tonight). So when Prime Minister Julia Gillard stood up in Question Time on Tuesday, and said "The election which I have called in September [will be a] choice between "a strong feisty woman and a policy weak man" [and] "I will win" frankly, many thought shit was about to hit the ceiling. Wednesday saw the enlarged elephant in the room as the leadership problem and was not helped at all by (former/ex) chief Government Whip Joel Fitzgibbon fanning the fire late Wednesday night.
Why does everything happen on a Thursday? People die, Universities are overloaded and people are at their crankiest on a Thursday, so why should anything else happen. Last year it was Asylum Seekers before the Winter Break and today it was Leadership speculation before the Autumn break. Thursdays are just crappy days. But I guess the only thing that is good about a Thursday, is that Friday follows. Nevertheless, the day that was intended to D Day for the Government turned out to be a flop for everyone whose name is not Julia Gillard. Not only do we go to sleep tonight with her as Leader, she is also Leader unopposed. What even?!?! After Simon Crean burst the puss filled pimple that is Labor Leadership, in a Press Conference earlier this morning, where he tried to call (some might say blackmail) Rudd into contesting the leadership he also volunteered himself as a possible deputy. Why? Was it just as simple as he said? To help fix and bring about change in the Labor Party, or was there something else? Never mind now I guess...
The point being, Im pretty sure someone should have consulted our friend Kev on this matter before the Press Conference, because really it was his decision right? He didn't get a voice in his political assassination, but maybe he would like a voice in his apparent comeback? And you know, if someone had, you know like asked, maybe the hoopla of today would need not have happened. As Rudd came out and said something like (but not quoting) 'hey guys, I'm the good guy and I keep my promises, so you won't see me on the ballot paper today' Just a thought. As between the real looking, fake Twitter accounts, and the MSM how is one, let alone a political junkie supposed to even grasp what the heck is going on in Canberra. At least 3 authentic looking, Rudd Twitter accounts were made and confused the living braincells out of many people today. Who knew an ill-placed underscore in a Twitter name would cause SO much shenanigans!
Nevertheless, as we close our eyes tonight and switch off our love affair with Canberra for another 7 weeks, while our representatives go out and mingle with society, let us remember our fallen pollies, who tonight might be feeling a little bit silly. And maybe even our pollies, who like our courageous Prime Minister has wiped the (metaphorical) sweat after today's proceedings from her brow, ready to face another onslaught of mind-numbing questions tomorrow.
And remember the only thing more exciting for this Opposition other than a Labor Leadership spill, is the lack of a budget surplus come May. So hold on to your horses as when Parliament resumes things may get even stickier!
When Collingwood and Saint Kilda drew in the 2010 AFL Grand Final, immediately after the game there was a sense of shock which quickly spilled into a quite eery feeling of nothing. Not dread a such. Not sadness per se. Definitely not happiness, but a feeling of 'what the hell just happened?' Speaking to a pair who attended the game, they remarked at just how silent the walk out of the MCG was. Saints and Collingwood fans equally depressed with the fact NOTHING happened. After the build up of Grand Final week the outcome (that week) bore no resemblance to the expectedness of what should have happened. What was expected. And the fans walking out of the MCG together that fateful day, were in mutual agony at the result. With that in mind, going to sleep tonight feels a lot like the Grand Final Draw.
Most people went to bed last night wondering if and what would happen today and/or tomorrow. It was the huge stampeding white elephant in the room/chamber/house and everyone - from Political Journalist/Commentator to average person on the street had an opinion on whether or not the Prime Minister should still be PM, or in fact resign/step down and make way for
My newly acquired book 'The Rise of the Ruddbot - OBSERVATIONS FROM THE GALLERY' by ABC's Annabel Crabb (so far) has depicted the last months in office for the Howard Government. Hilariously humorous but not completely earth shattering. However the thing that strikes me as fabulous is, that the way Crabb describes Howard, is the same way the media now is portraying Gillard. Deeply unpopular yet still somehow able to retain leadership. Another non political example is in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, one of the main themes specific to that book is History repeating itself, which effectively is what is going on here. Granted Howard's demise, came after, over a decade in the Prime Ministership and the current state of politics looks set to dispose of Gillard after one 'outright' term.
The contest for the Labor Leadership, which has been bubbling for a long while now, finally spilled over again this week, after the ALP looked set to try and rush through Media Reform Bills before the Autumn Recess (which starts when Parliament adjourns tonight). So when Prime Minister Julia Gillard stood up in Question Time on Tuesday, and said "The election which I have called in September [will be a] choice between "a strong feisty woman and a policy weak man" [and] "I will win" frankly, many thought shit was about to hit the ceiling. Wednesday saw the enlarged elephant in the room as the leadership problem and was not helped at all by (former/ex) chief Government Whip Joel Fitzgibbon fanning the fire late Wednesday night.
Why does everything happen on a Thursday? People die, Universities are overloaded and people are at their crankiest on a Thursday, so why should anything else happen. Last year it was Asylum Seekers before the Winter Break and today it was Leadership speculation before the Autumn break. Thursdays are just crappy days. But I guess the only thing that is good about a Thursday, is that Friday follows. Nevertheless, the day that was intended to D Day for the Government turned out to be a flop for everyone whose name is not Julia Gillard. Not only do we go to sleep tonight with her as Leader, she is also Leader unopposed. What even?!?! After Simon Crean burst the puss filled pimple that is Labor Leadership, in a Press Conference earlier this morning, where he tried to call (some might say blackmail) Rudd into contesting the leadership he also volunteered himself as a possible deputy. Why? Was it just as simple as he said? To help fix and bring about change in the Labor Party, or was there something else? Never mind now I guess...
The point being, Im pretty sure someone should have consulted our friend Kev on this matter before the Press Conference, because really it was his decision right? He didn't get a voice in his political assassination, but maybe he would like a voice in his apparent comeback? And you know, if someone had, you know like asked, maybe the hoopla of today would need not have happened. As Rudd came out and said something like (but not quoting) 'hey guys, I'm the good guy and I keep my promises, so you won't see me on the ballot paper today' Just a thought. As between the real looking, fake Twitter accounts, and the MSM how is one, let alone a political junkie supposed to even grasp what the heck is going on in Canberra. At least 3 authentic looking, Rudd Twitter accounts were made and confused the living braincells out of many people today. Who knew an ill-placed underscore in a Twitter name would cause SO much shenanigans!
Nevertheless, as we close our eyes tonight and switch off our love affair with Canberra for another 7 weeks, while our representatives go out and mingle with society, let us remember our fallen pollies, who tonight might be feeling a little bit silly. And maybe even our pollies, who like our courageous Prime Minister has wiped the (metaphorical) sweat after today's proceedings from her brow, ready to face another onslaught of mind-numbing questions tomorrow.
And remember the only thing more exciting for this Opposition other than a Labor Leadership spill, is the lack of a budget surplus come May. So hold on to your horses as when Parliament resumes things may get even stickier!
Friday, March 15, 2013
Why can't we be friends?
When you are at Primary School teachers, parents and other adults tried their hardest to make sure everyone had a friend, someone to play with at recess and lunch. The adults acted as peacekeepers and conflict negotiators, resolving problems so that everyone could get along. As we grew up, moving into High School, us as 'mature' young adults begin to understand that there are just some people we need to avoid - for a range of reasons. Whether it is just that we think differently to them and believe different things or just because our interests and lives are different. University or life after school comes along and we make our own friends and just get on with living, those who don't enjoy, like or are not interested in politics chose not to engage in debates and forums where ideas can be discussed. Yet it is about this time young people turn 18 and whilst most look forward to 'getting smashed' (drunk) these same 18 year olds also now get to vote. Becoming active members in society, who have the opportunity to help influence the way our country is run. However this blog post is not about me harping on about the sacred right to vote, Promise. More so, I am exploring the idea of why people think our politicians have to get along. I am sick and tired of listening to people say our politicians need not to fight but to get along. Why do they HAVE to get along? They believe in different things, come from different parties, and if parliament was high school, the politicians who cant 'get along' would probably choose not to encounter each other and walk the other way.
Uninformed, misguided people ask why our politicians can't just 'get on' and forget their differences - as if that would be an easy concept at the best of times, but nevertheless they ask, seeking a real answer. When I hear this, I always wonder if they realise what they are saying, because in a nutshell they are asking why their representative and the other 149 members (in the House of Representatives and 76 in the Senate) don't all believe in the same things. Granted our major parties are moving towards the center of the political spectrum in terms of policy and party lines, but on the whole all sides have their differences. Political Ideologies on a whole, might be on the way out , for example the current traditional left winged Government may not be particularly in favour of Same Sex Marriage or Republicanism in Australia. But something do never change, with the ALP Government aiming to provide assistance to lower income households to try and counteract the Clean Energy Futures Legislation and MRRT.
Now, yes I do read the paper, and yes I do watch the news, and yes I see that Question Times is more a case of brattiness but other stuff still happens in Federal Politics. Legislation does get announced more often than people think and if one hooks into the live stream of the House of Representatives at any other time than the hour or so allocated for Question Time OTHER STUFF HAPPENS! Shocking I know!
If all our politicians 'got along' the level or criticism and critique would surely be diminished. The, "I'll help you if you help me" mentality would create an even more secretive and behind closed doors Government if there wasn't a small amount of hostility amongst our representatives. Maybe Australian Politics has hit a few lows in recent times but I think our minority Parliament has been able to produce some greats things as well despite the at times childish nature of the Lower House. Will the Tax on Carbon (NOT A CARBON TAX!) be looked upon in the same way come 20 years? Who knows it might become as historic and important as the Native Title Act did for Keating in the 1990's.
The point being, that sometimes I think we get caught up in the trivial parts of what goes on in Canberra, to the point that some people believe nothing good ever comes from our Representatives regular meeting in Parliament House. Whether or not this view is accurate remains to be seen. I understand the analogy of a child growing up may be too simplistic when it comes to comparing our Federal Representatives, and I also know a lot of the time all sides of politics agree on many things. It just seems to me, that when someone says "why can't they all just be friends" that person has no idea what is going on around them. Maybe a better question would be, "why can't they grudgingly accept each other and discuss policy without throwing a tantrum?" At least that way said person acknowledges the role of government in our society. The textbooks all say (well the seven or so scattered around me right now anyway) that in the Parliament, during Questions without Notice (Question Time), Ministers are asked questions directly related to their portfolios and from which Ministers must reply complying with the standing orders from each House. Whether this happens in such a straightforward matter remains to be seen but the idea is clear.
Be friends. Be friends, I find that funny also. How many times have you met 149 people (or 75 even) and instantly love all of them despite some of them being male, female, tall, short, obese, pompous, shy, smart and the list goes on. Yes professionalism must come into the mix, and for the most part we, the public don't hear all the wonderful bipartisan action that occurs daily, we just get the hating on each other part. Which does make for a good story... I guess. Sigh!
So people, the moral of my story is question why you want our politicians to "make up and just be friends" because maybe it is you that needs to look at how you view politics and view it in a different light. Nice is well nice, but nice doesn't mean things will automatically get done.
Uninformed, misguided people ask why our politicians can't just 'get on' and forget their differences - as if that would be an easy concept at the best of times, but nevertheless they ask, seeking a real answer. When I hear this, I always wonder if they realise what they are saying, because in a nutshell they are asking why their representative and the other 149 members (in the House of Representatives and 76 in the Senate) don't all believe in the same things. Granted our major parties are moving towards the center of the political spectrum in terms of policy and party lines, but on the whole all sides have their differences. Political Ideologies on a whole, might be on the way out , for example the current traditional left winged Government may not be particularly in favour of Same Sex Marriage or Republicanism in Australia. But something do never change, with the ALP Government aiming to provide assistance to lower income households to try and counteract the Clean Energy Futures Legislation and MRRT.
Now, yes I do read the paper, and yes I do watch the news, and yes I see that Question Times is more a case of brattiness but other stuff still happens in Federal Politics. Legislation does get announced more often than people think and if one hooks into the live stream of the House of Representatives at any other time than the hour or so allocated for Question Time OTHER STUFF HAPPENS! Shocking I know!
If all our politicians 'got along' the level or criticism and critique would surely be diminished. The, "I'll help you if you help me" mentality would create an even more secretive and behind closed doors Government if there wasn't a small amount of hostility amongst our representatives. Maybe Australian Politics has hit a few lows in recent times but I think our minority Parliament has been able to produce some greats things as well despite the at times childish nature of the Lower House. Will the Tax on Carbon (NOT A CARBON TAX!) be looked upon in the same way come 20 years? Who knows it might become as historic and important as the Native Title Act did for Keating in the 1990's.
The point being, that sometimes I think we get caught up in the trivial parts of what goes on in Canberra, to the point that some people believe nothing good ever comes from our Representatives regular meeting in Parliament House. Whether or not this view is accurate remains to be seen. I understand the analogy of a child growing up may be too simplistic when it comes to comparing our Federal Representatives, and I also know a lot of the time all sides of politics agree on many things. It just seems to me, that when someone says "why can't they all just be friends" that person has no idea what is going on around them. Maybe a better question would be, "why can't they grudgingly accept each other and discuss policy without throwing a tantrum?" At least that way said person acknowledges the role of government in our society. The textbooks all say (well the seven or so scattered around me right now anyway) that in the Parliament, during Questions without Notice (Question Time), Ministers are asked questions directly related to their portfolios and from which Ministers must reply complying with the standing orders from each House. Whether this happens in such a straightforward matter remains to be seen but the idea is clear.
Be friends. Be friends, I find that funny also. How many times have you met 149 people (or 75 even) and instantly love all of them despite some of them being male, female, tall, short, obese, pompous, shy, smart and the list goes on. Yes professionalism must come into the mix, and for the most part we, the public don't hear all the wonderful bipartisan action that occurs daily, we just get the hating on each other part. Which does make for a good story... I guess. Sigh!
So people, the moral of my story is question why you want our politicians to "make up and just be friends" because maybe it is you that needs to look at how you view politics and view it in a different light. Nice is well nice, but nice doesn't mean things will automatically get done.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
In a perfect world what democracy would look like ...?
Yay, the time I have been waiting for has finally arrived. My purpose has returned, Im glowing and I am once again actively studying Australian Politics. Even though I am constantly looking for 'breaking stories' or new news articles, I love that I am back inside a politics classroom once again. Hello highlighters, sticky notes, books, textbooks and pens.
Reading the course notes for first year Political Studies, the immediate weeks ahead are spent looking at democracy, what it is, and unpacking left and right winged views. Not probably as fascinating as looking at the current Victorian Parliament with a new change in Premier's and nor is it probably as exciting as examining the new South Australian Labor branding but it is a good start I guess. All the textbooks I can currently find, start out posing the question "why study politics?" and go on to say things like "its all around you" and "It's not as boring as you think". I guess those who are not quite as obsessed as some people need some help getting excited about the prospect of 3 x 50minute 'lessons' a week, on the subject.
A question I have come across in my readings is, In a perfect world, what would a democracy look like to you? I asked a friend of mine and they said it would be exactly like communism. Why? Because everybody would be equal, just taking what they need, rather than what they maybe want. I did agree with them at the time, but thinking back I am not completely sure. Sure there would be a level of equality amongst all the participants within the community governed by this so called 'democracy' but at the same time, I am not sure communism would always ensue. According to David Beetham in his book Democracy, Democracy is "understood as a procedure for taking decisions in any group, association or society, whereby all members have an equal right to have a say and to make their opinions count." Rather implying that all participating members of said democratic community have the EQUAL RIGHT to have their opinions counted, not necessarily to be in the majority.
In Australia and in most developed nations which call themselves democratic in Government, Citizens over a certain age have the option or are forced to vote, making their opinions heard by a higher power. Communism on the other hand is devoid of having a higher power IE: a Government at any level. In many cases Communism has proved unsuccessful, none more so than the wonderful Animal Farm by George Orwell; Where the commandment of "All animals are equal" was eventually changed to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," referring to the leaders having more authority than the common folk. Hence going back to what is a perfect democracy, is it where everybody has a say on every issue? To me that is justified with the words "in a perfect world", In a perfect world counting votes would be instantaneous and everybody could vote on every issue, with the need for politicians eradicated. Or is a perfect world referring to a world where there are no constraints as to being allowed to vote. Currently in most voting countries either, age, location, gender or race can severely effect your ability to cast a ballot, in a perfect democracy would this be a problem? Likewise in a perfect world illnesses and diseases would not exist, thereby creating an avenue to be even more democratic when it comes to decision making, because more of society would be voting. Does a perfect world automatically account to a higher voting population? Or turnout rate? Or does it simply mean more people having the OPTION of letting their opinions be heard.
But we must always take into account that even in a pure democratic environment not everyone will get what they desire. In Australia we say our Government is democratically elected, but a member in the House of Representatives may only have 51% of their constituencies vote, and the number (or quota) is smaller in the Senate. Would a perfect world force the elected officials (if we even had them) to be elected in with more than 51% of the vote? A perfect world is nice to imagine, and in the countless textbooks scattered around me the definition of a democracy is quite similar, democracy can also be in the eye of the beholder. How? The US election in 2000, the Right thought it was democratic, Bush had won enough votes for the media and officials to call it, but the left felt robbed.
Those who despise politics always say to me, "why can't they all get on? Its all a load of rubbish anyway" probably wish for a perfect world free of all things political, but then some of the people I admire would be out of work, so I am just going to leave you with my feelings of a perfect democracy. It would look like a place where One) voters make informed decisions and Two) factors like age, gender and race have no place when it comes to elections. But then again I do like Beetham's expression of democracy also.
Reading the course notes for first year Political Studies, the immediate weeks ahead are spent looking at democracy, what it is, and unpacking left and right winged views. Not probably as fascinating as looking at the current Victorian Parliament with a new change in Premier's and nor is it probably as exciting as examining the new South Australian Labor branding but it is a good start I guess. All the textbooks I can currently find, start out posing the question "why study politics?" and go on to say things like "its all around you" and "It's not as boring as you think". I guess those who are not quite as obsessed as some people need some help getting excited about the prospect of 3 x 50minute 'lessons' a week, on the subject.
A question I have come across in my readings is, In a perfect world, what would a democracy look like to you? I asked a friend of mine and they said it would be exactly like communism. Why? Because everybody would be equal, just taking what they need, rather than what they maybe want. I did agree with them at the time, but thinking back I am not completely sure. Sure there would be a level of equality amongst all the participants within the community governed by this so called 'democracy' but at the same time, I am not sure communism would always ensue. According to David Beetham in his book Democracy, Democracy is "understood as a procedure for taking decisions in any group, association or society, whereby all members have an equal right to have a say and to make their opinions count." Rather implying that all participating members of said democratic community have the EQUAL RIGHT to have their opinions counted, not necessarily to be in the majority.
In Australia and in most developed nations which call themselves democratic in Government, Citizens over a certain age have the option or are forced to vote, making their opinions heard by a higher power. Communism on the other hand is devoid of having a higher power IE: a Government at any level. In many cases Communism has proved unsuccessful, none more so than the wonderful Animal Farm by George Orwell; Where the commandment of "All animals are equal" was eventually changed to "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," referring to the leaders having more authority than the common folk. Hence going back to what is a perfect democracy, is it where everybody has a say on every issue? To me that is justified with the words "in a perfect world", In a perfect world counting votes would be instantaneous and everybody could vote on every issue, with the need for politicians eradicated. Or is a perfect world referring to a world where there are no constraints as to being allowed to vote. Currently in most voting countries either, age, location, gender or race can severely effect your ability to cast a ballot, in a perfect democracy would this be a problem? Likewise in a perfect world illnesses and diseases would not exist, thereby creating an avenue to be even more democratic when it comes to decision making, because more of society would be voting. Does a perfect world automatically account to a higher voting population? Or turnout rate? Or does it simply mean more people having the OPTION of letting their opinions be heard.
But we must always take into account that even in a pure democratic environment not everyone will get what they desire. In Australia we say our Government is democratically elected, but a member in the House of Representatives may only have 51% of their constituencies vote, and the number (or quota) is smaller in the Senate. Would a perfect world force the elected officials (if we even had them) to be elected in with more than 51% of the vote? A perfect world is nice to imagine, and in the countless textbooks scattered around me the definition of a democracy is quite similar, democracy can also be in the eye of the beholder. How? The US election in 2000, the Right thought it was democratic, Bush had won enough votes for the media and officials to call it, but the left felt robbed.
Those who despise politics always say to me, "why can't they all get on? Its all a load of rubbish anyway" probably wish for a perfect world free of all things political, but then some of the people I admire would be out of work, so I am just going to leave you with my feelings of a perfect democracy. It would look like a place where One) voters make informed decisions and Two) factors like age, gender and race have no place when it comes to elections. But then again I do like Beetham's expression of democracy also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)