The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Towards a true democracy > Comments

Towards a true democracy : Comments

By David Donovan, published 9/6/2010

How can we overcome the subjugation of democracy by the major political parties?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
"True democracy" sits in the same out-basket as "a fair society", or even "equality".

They all belong in the eye of the beholder.

A fair society will never be fair to all. Equality is a myth, since its prerequisite is that everybody wants the same things. Democracy is no longer controlled by the people, but by politicians.

Democracy, as we have come to understand it, has evolved into a self-perpetuating process whereby a succession of pigs gorges itself at the trough of taxpayers' money, the only noticeable difference being the names of the pigs and the depth of the trough.

The system has pretty much the same relationship with democracy as Damien Hirst has with art; worshipped and adored by those who make money from it, but a complete mystery to the rest of the population.

If you happen to complain, they smugly quote Winston Churchill at you.

"...democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time"

As if, somehow, this excuses all the iniquities perpetrated in its name.

But realistically, it is all about money. Having accustomed the citizenry to the idea of taxation as a way of life, the government sees itself as the giver of largesse.

Which leads inevitably to that cutting aperçu that mysteriously surfaced mid-twentieth century...

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury"

Not quite as popular as Winnie, but a fundamental truth nonetheless.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 8:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's some gloomy sentiments. Really what you are arguing there, Pericles, is that we are not really advanced enough to properly participate in a democracy. I disagree. I think that we can as a race, under the right conditions, exercise the restraint and wisdom necessary to be able to stop ourselves from ransacking the public purse and to be able to negotiate rather than try to stamp out all objection. To think otherwise is to accept that the folly of the past is destined to always recur in the future.
Posted by davrosz, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 10:12:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very good summary of the system of government we are saddled with, David Donovan!

You conclude with the hope, offered without proof or evidence, that "We are not barbarians, we can build a fairer society and a true democracy."

Well, I would say we are not so barbaric as our ancestors, but there are still many barbarians in our society. Take a look at the thugs playing professional football for frequent examples, then look to the thousands of football supporters for others of the same mentality. For more professionally trained thugs you need look no further than the ADF and the government's police forces. Not all of us are ready yet for a fairer society and a true democracy.

But even if the vast majority of us wanted change we are unlikely to get it because, to quote David Donovan "since the major parties hold sway in Australia, it is difficult to see them relinquishing their hold on power any time soon." It's easy enough to think of ways to improve our political system, but impossible to get them implemented. Have you noticed that now that opinion polls are pointing to a shift in voter support to the Greens, both the major parties are already attacking the Greens? Just as all major parties combined to destroy Pauline Hanson when she started pointing out some of the failures of the current system?

It's a shocking thought to realize that Australian governments are the enemies of Australian citizens, but until that is more widely understood we can't expect much significant change. The system is far too powerfully entrenched!
Posted by Forkes, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 10:53:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This type of thing has been churned out time and time again. It is naive and useless to continue parroting such stuff because the only people who can make change are the voters; and voters are apathetic and politically illiterate. They have no interest in politics as long as their lives are jogging along to their satisfaction, and it's only about 5% of them who actually change governments anyway. And, that change is merely from tweedledum to tweedledee.

People thinking that voters are suddenly going to take any interest in the political process are just wasting their time and boring people who are already bored by politics.

This is as good as it gets.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 11:01:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with everyone here;
As for the abstractness of what a "pure" democracy is; I think generally a shift to more accountability and stronger public overrides of government (via CIR) would be quite a good jump in the right direction.
Of course, as long as we vote for the Liberals, Labor, Nationals or Democrats we can most definitely forget about anything changing.

(and I am aware of the Democrats supposed support for CIR- reading the fine print they list a LOT of exemptions and limitations to make it nothing more than an opinion poll).
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 11:20:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I call it as I see it, davrosz.

>>That's some gloomy sentiments. Really what you are arguing there, Pericles, is that we are not really advanced enough to properly participate in a democracy.<<

We are now sufficiently civilized not to consider revolution a valid political statement, true. But in the process have lost lost touch with any alternative means to effect change.

The power to change rests entirely with politicians. But there is no politician prepared to effect any change for the better (i.e. where the will of the people is an active consideration), nor will you find one prepared to stand for election on such a platform.

Nor, incidentally, is there any necessity for anyone who does stand for a lurch towards government "of the people, by the people, for the people", to do anything about it once elected.

The sanest first step would be to make election promises binding in law. Not in the sense that everything that is promised must come to pass. But in the sense that when elected, the representative is obliged to vote in line with his/her election platform.

A vote that is attempted contrary to an expressed election commitment would simply not be counted.

That would represent progress towards a democracy that actually reflected the will of the people at a point in time - the election - while allowing a continuation of representation as the foundation stone.

Direct democracy, Athens-style, is not appropriate to the twentyfirst century. But their concept of responsibility in office most certainly is:

"It was Cleophon who first granted the two obol donation for the theatrical performances, and for some time it continued to be given; but then Callicrates of Paeania ousted him by promising to add a third obol to the sum. Both of these persons were subsequently condemned to death; for the people, even if they are deceived for a time, in the end generally come to detest those who have beguiled them into any unworthy action." Aristotole: The Athenian Constitution

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.2.2.html

I just love the last bit.

Rings bells, does that.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 2:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy