legitimacy is the label put on the acceptance of the forms of governance by the general community. a government without acceptance as legitimate must govern through application of power.

governments avoid rule through power, it's expensive and dangerous. traditionally, the king strikes a deal with the high priest: the priest says the king is god's ruler, the king says all must worship in the high priest's church.

it's not that simple, anymore. religion has been supplanted by 'media'. the high priest is replaced by media proprietors. worse, the king has been 'assisted' by his public servants and politicians, into irrelevance.

why does the king linger on? legitimacy. the monarchy is the figleaf over the seizure of power by a guild of political bandits.

does it matter? it matters a lot. the legal basis of operation of the nation is founded on a lie. the constitution is a nonsense. as a result, law is only an assertion of current power-holders. this reality will percolate through the community and rot the legitimacy of the state.

does it matter? it matters if the current eruption of corruption in nsw convinces you that "enough is enough!" the corruption that never leaves the news, the incompetence that makes discussion of roads, hospitals, water, power generation, environment a matter of on-going despair is the natural and inescapable result of parliamentary government.

if you want a better result, if you want to pass on an oz as good or better than you got, it's time ozzians put themselves at the head table of government. it's not hard. politicians have no legitimacy but your vote. put it to use to put them at the service of the people.

if you want to move toward democracy, admit you haven't got it. then we can talk about how to get it, as well as why.

or just say "she'll be right" and go back to the racing guide.

Demos, we have a smidgeon of democracy that comes with our vote as you say. The November election showed the power of the people in deposing what had become a repressive, single interest serving and out of touch government. This is what happens when governments DON'T listen to the people and DON'T WANT TO.

Most people would agree that a vote does not mean a mandate to do anything (surprise sprung on us by the Howard government with WorkChoices). With a balance in the Senate at least there is scrutiny, discussion and consultation.

If we accept that no system can be totally perfect how could we ensure greater democracy than we already have (such that it is)?

Referendums on issues might be one way but would people get fed up and jaded? They would have to be important and well targeted referendums. But I guess this would be a person's choice whether to vote or not if they felt strongly enough about the issue.

Some thoughts:

Could there ever be a pure democracy? Probably not possible - voters would need access to 'real' information to be able to make informed decisions. Sometimes information can be portrayed differently depending on the delivery ie. a charismatic speaker as opposed to an awkward speaker which might reflect on the perceived value of the argument BUT arguing against my own thoughts, I guess we have that now - prior to every election we are bombarded with spin, half truths and outright lies and have to do our best in distinguishing between them.

Democracy is not always perfect or fair - the old joke about democracy is when three foxes and a chicken are deciding what's for dinner. :)

How could true democracy be achieved? I know we could do better.

thanks for contributing, pel. as you point out 'democracy' is not a magic wand. part of the problem is that there is no democracy in oz, but there is a vague feeling that it's a good thing. so the word has been 'newspeaked' into meaning 'good'. aristotle was more precise: a society ruled by the people. he didn't claim it was good in the sense of 'virtuous', and classical athenians were as unlovable as their neighbors.

the important part of democracy in a modern state is that it puts the power to act in the hands of citizens. this wonderfully concentrates the minds of politicians and bureaucrats, whose position is open to public scrutiny, and public sanction. the result is not that every citizen must be a statesman, but that incompetence and corruption can be dealt with quickly and effectively. better, they don't take office in the first place.

apologists for aristocracy say "the people can't rule, they're too ignorant. and besides, it's impractical to vote on every aspect of state management". this is simply a lie. the two best exemplars of democracy today are california, and switzerland. californians have recently fired their governor for incompetence and refused to support referenda offered by his successor. the sky didn't fall. and california is the leading american state, in culture and commerce. so was athens.

switzerland is the only nation-state that approaches democracy. they are not saints. but this nation of only 5 million played a seminal role in the creation of the red cross and the league of nations, and has been so stable and prosperous that their currency has been an international standard for many years. democracy has been more effective than elitism for them. it could be for us, too.

a parliamentary republic can be a democracy. switzerland is one. or it can be a dictatorship, like zimbabwe. i suggest we move toward the swiss model as quickly as possible, lest some more competent pauline hanson turn us into zimbabwe.

i'll have something to say about 'how to get there' when my keyboard finger recovers. for now, look at the evening news and reflect on the never ending corruption and incompetence of parliamentary government. we don't have to put up with it.

i think for a 'democracy' to work, it has to be dedicated to core principles. i suggest a few: 1. unbiased expertise and advice (at present, decisions are made on ignorance, moral or emotive arguments and politics...when experts/scientists are ignored and dismissed out of hand..but this does not mean you take the 'middle road' necessarily). 2. Freedom (recognising that others are different from you and have a right to that difference without harassment) 3. no political correctness or secret special interests

You could really have a dictator who could achieve 100x as much as our government if he was the right person. That says a lot about democracy and it's failings....eg. internal bickerings that last months or years...legal squabbling that last years, massive and costly bureaucracy....really, this is a question of having smarter, better people in government that are not afraid of leading or changing things.

...and another important feature would be "bureaucrat access" and the scrapping of standardized reply letters/emails from same.