Everald, what about the relationship between big business and government?

How can you discuss governmental power and public disillusionment without even mentioning this?

One of the biggest factors that has led to the level of disillusionment with government, and the now-entrenched pattern of parties winning government by default due to the other mob being booted out, is the hold that big business has over government, at all levels.

The donations regime is just utterly disgusting. Those with power and big money BUY favours from government. This leads to an ENORMOUS bias in the decision-making process.

It leads to us to having to cop very high immigration, against the wishes of the majority of ordinary Australians.

It leads us to worship continuous growth, and to have an economic indicator (GDP) which counts all economic activity as being entirely good for us and to be taking our country forward, even that generated by car accidents and smoking-related disease!

As soon as Gillard gained power, she said:

“I believe in a sustainable Australia, not a big Australia”

….which was an eminently sensible thing to say. But she then never said anything remotely like that ever again… and led a government which continued to facilitate very high immigration and to worship GDP and never-ending high economic growth, much of which was generated by high immigration and which was neutral in terms of improving our average quality of life or helping to secure a healthy future.

This is surely a prime example of big business holding sway over political common sense... and doing so in a critically important manner.

The author's wee theories are unremarkable.

While to state categorically:

"Whoever is in power at any level of government anywhere in the nation will be removed at the next election, whether they be left or right."

is somewhat delusional.

Is there a happy humping ground for post-dotage authors?

Have to agree Everald and a prospect borne out by recent polling?
And without a workable majority, Labor has even fewer prospects of fulfilling voter expectations!
What is needed by both parties is a huge influx of new people, with new ideas!
After all, doing what you've always done, gets you what you always got!
And haven't we the people, had an absolute gutful of that, or indeed; putting vested or foreign interest ahead of Australia and or Australians!
Or indeed, locking up trillions in potential wealth, just because we are told to, by those foreign interests, who may be hurt by increased and more affordable energy!?
Or indeed, overdue reform; and a much fairer and equitable tax system!
The very best way to deal with so called debt and deficit, is through increased economic growth!
And just which party is first in the queue, with new ideas on how we might achieve just that! Well?
Rhrosty.

Australians have a relatively high level of education.

“In 2011, of Australia’s resident population of 14.8 million people aged 15-64 years, 8.4 million (57%) held at least one formal (non-school) qualification. Approximately 3.5 million had completed a Bachelor degree or above. A further 1.4 million reported an Advanced diploma or Diploma, 2.6 million a Certificate III or IV and 0.5 million a Certificate I or II as their highest qualification.”

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Educational%20attainment~110

We also have quite sophisticated communication network systems.

So why don’t we have more direct democracy systems, and we are still bothering with totally archaic and increasingly dysfunctional political parties.

I see no attempt by any major political party to have some type of direct democracy system operating inside the country

I think this is because our political parties don’t want direct democracy, and want power over the people instead.

Just another reason why I never vote for any political party any more.

But that was just speechifying, Everard.

"Some 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln said magnificently that democracy was the government of the people, by the people, for the people".

One enduring myth is that in 1384, the theologian Thomas Wycliffe wrote something remarkably similar in his prologue to the earliest Bible to be translated into English - “This Bible is for the government of the people, for the people and by the people.”

No-one has so far managed to substantiate this with an example of the original - Middle English - quote. Far more credible is the evidence that it was contained in one the sermons of one Theodore Parker, given to Lincoln by his law partner, William Herndon. According to Herndon:

"He liked especially the following expression, which he marked with a pencil, and which he in substance afterwards used in his Gettysburg Address: 'Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, for all the people, by all the people'".

In effect, it was not much more than a bit of sloganeering, trite and catchy enough to make any PR Agency proud.

But does it matter? Aren't the words themselves evidence of a commitment to egalitarianism and freedom from authoritarian oppression?

I think it does matter. The fact is that democracy has failed miserably to live up to Lincoln's definition. I doubt it ever has, anywhere in the world. Which probably means that the definition itself is faulty, and that democracy in these terms is merely a figment of our own imaginations.

Perhaps we would be better employed looking for simpler, more direct solutions to the problems of our governance, rather than reaching for a patently irrelevant catchphrase, and creating unrealistic expectations through an appeal to the idealist within.

Grandiose speeches are fine, so long as you don't expect your audience to actually think about meaning of the words.

Pericles,

There is a set of opinion polls regarding trust and confidence in local, state and federal politics in the US.

Trust and confidence in federal politics is hitting an all time low, with greatest lack of trust and confidence in the legislative and the executive branch, and some in the judicial branch.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx

I think that would be the same here, and whenever party politics enters into the scene and takes hold, there is a decline in trust and confidence, and that decline seems to be getting greater in time.

There is an interesting account of “Lewin's Leadership Styles” or “Three Major Styles of Leadership”

http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/leadstyles.htm

These styles are Authoritarian Leadership (Autocratic), Participative Leadership (Democratic), and Delegative (Laissez-Faire) Leadership.

Now Authoritarian Leadership does have a use in times of crises, but the most productive seems to be Participative Leadership, and the least productive was Delegative Leadership.

I thought this was funny.

"The autocratic-authoritarian cluster encompasses being arbitrary, controlling, power-oriented, coercive, punitive, and close-minded. The cluster has often been described in pejorative terms.”

Seems to fit Tony Abbot and Joe Hockey to a T.