“Public opinion and debate does count. One has only to view Rudd’s many radio interviews in the immediate days after a Newspoll (December 3, 2009) suggested declining support for Labor because of its approach to Sri Lankan asylum seekers.”

Yes. But nobody seems to know whether the decline in support is because people think the ‘approach’ is too tough or they think it is too soft. Or, did they think that it made Rudd look completely idiotic, which it did.

As for whether we are a true democracy and the best place in the world to live, that depends on your definition of democracy.
While we, and other Western countries appear to be democratic according to the basic definition of the word, it is clear that, once politicians are elected to power, they can pretty much do as they wish, and they only ‘reform’ or offer reasons to vote for them again at the end of their terms. We can complain as much as we like about their actions, but they don’t take a lot of notice.

Is that democratic?

They claim mandates, but they cannot possibly have a mandate for everything they wish to do simply by being voted in as preferable to another party.

Currently, we have an Opposition Leader crapping himself because of the threat of a double dissolution and, therefore, pussy-footing around with amendments to an ETS scheme that many Australians, and many in his parliamentary party, do not want.

Malcolm Turnbull is clearly thinking more of himself and his party than he is of Australia and Australians, instead of risking a double dissolution that would clear up the problem decisively.

Is that democratic?

Of course it’s not democratic. We are promised the world by shysters who want to ‘serve’ us, but once they get in, they don’t give a damn about what we think

Leigh,

All of your points are valid.

However, I do think democracy works best, but only if enough pressure emerges from the public on many important issues to force policy elites to do something. Now this is indeed a struggle as our self-interest can complicate progress. For instance, we all know more needs to be done on the environment, but few of us walk the walk preferrign to talk the talk.

I agree with you. The policies of the major political parties on key issues at present are a bit of a joke.

But the public can force government to do more on the environment and so on. In regard to addressing greenhouse gas emmissions, public opinion will help shape the agenda. I believe that most Australians want something done and it will be the Coalition that will be seen as a dinasour in regard to its reluctance to do anything. Let it dig its own grave. I have faith that the majority of Aust's are sensible.
Though early in the day, a NINE MSN poll today shows that almost 2-1 think humans are responsible for global warming.

Once some change occurs, further pressure may emerge in the future to push greater measures if warranted

"That is why Australians must offer their various arguments in a liberal democracy to ensure that policy elites think that much harder about policy complexity"

Problem is the government of the day are under absolutely no compulsion to comply- especially if they might personally benefit from doing something unpopular.

It is indeed a very good thing we can speak our minds in this country- the problem is our specific brand of democracy means we're usually speaking to deaf ears.

There's still a lot that can be improved upon our (Australian/Westminster) version of democracy indeed to get some more practical results. Including the way we vote.

You have highlighted the problem with our system of democracy. We may well reach a compromise. The problem is that if the science is correct a compromise is worse than useless. There is no indication that a democratic system based on immediate public and political pressures can respond to a long term, system problem requiring long term and structural solutions. In fact, the evidence points quite clearly to our complete inability to deal with climate change. If democracy is about finding middle grounds, compromise, splitting the baby - it can work fine. Unfortunately, climate change isn't that kind of baby.

next

better balance towards the environment is not expressed by any political system that I know of. All political systems and societies express preference for lifestyle and employment, even more basic societies although they have had less impact because of lack of technology.

Humanity now complicated by many more people and scarcer natural resources (water and forests).

I still think that democracies will find best solutions.

Next- basically, in a democratic society (a real one where the public has real input)- if the majority feel inclined to act to the benefit of the environment (and it seems most do indeed), then the society WILL act to the benefit of the environment.
In any other society, it comes down to if the leader and the people the leader feels inclined to obey want to help the environment, then they will.

It's as Chris Lewis said- it boils down to the willingness of the decision-makers.