The article makes some good suggestions as far as it goes, but I suggest it offers no workable plan for implementing any of them. Fair enough to describe the woeful government we get from the political party system, but if we were to want to fix that by outlawing political parties, who would do it? Government, consisting of one or a gang of parties? The Governor General or Queen perhaps? Not likely!

Same with many of the other reforms the majority of our population would probably support, if such matters were ever considered. Unless it suits the governing party's agenda (and those who influence it), nothing gets done.

The Australian population is too comfortable to do any more than have an occasional grizzle about the way we are governed. Those in charge are careful to keep it that way. Those who really want change have few workable options other than to get some good guns and start assassinating the corrupt politicians and their servants who betray the rest of us to the USA, Israel, big business, and others who control the world. John Howard foresaw that years ago when he took away our guns.

ASIO please note this is not an incitement to violence!

On the contrary our politicians have already passed legislation for renewable energy targets, which will begin the process of crippling this nation. Our politicians may seem a little coy about further steps, because they know that the public backlash from soaring electricity prices will eventually erupt. The elephant in the room in this election is the carbon tax or ETS.
It was hilarious watching Swan and Hockey perform a little ping pong with it last night on the 7.30 report. Last years 'greatest economic, environmental and moral challenge of our time' is this year's 'back burner' issue. Is the earth in danger of catastrophic global warming, or not? There were all sorts of alarmist threats 8 months ago, when we only had a couple of weeks to save the planet. Was someone trying to pull the wool over our eyes then, or now.
If the public's attention span only lasts for a few weeks and they let their politicians get away with this sort of inconsistent and curious behaviour, if they have not yet become a little sceptical, I guess they can only blame themselves, when global enslavement tax finally arrives.

One of the great things about democracy is that it often returns governments, on the right or centre-left, that activists don't like. Most of the reforms suggested by the author give activists mechanisms by which they can target particular MPs or whole governments that they don't like.
Activists would be constantly pushing for these recall elections, whether they had a case for doing so or not.
Fortunately its never going to happen.

Paulo Friere’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” can be seen as having a challenging concept that relates to the notion that the Australian political system is not serving the interests of Australians, that is the oppressed are part authors of the oppression!

In a political sense Australians are not the helpless recipients of the claimed failings of government/politicians. The expectations and aspirations we hold alongside our lethargies have created the political process we experience – and that includes the ethics/morality of those running or supporting government.

It is insightful to consider the maxim that makes large scale fraud possible – “if all the pigs have their mouth full none will squeal”. Whilst individuals' self interest is served the wider interests of society are ignored.

2 strands may hold the key, and these strands start with the population as individuals.

1. Self interest versus group interest – this is a paradoxical pairing. A return to the concept of “a fair go” may help, and that is a fair go for everyone not just myself.

2. Adopt the construct citizen responsibility – we have to be active in the political process rather than passively sit by and think politicians have to win our interest. Those who turn up decide government; if you don’t turn up don’t complain.

These two strands must work together. Kerry Packer informed a parliamentary inquiry that government was there to do things for him not to him. That view of the world ignores strand 1 above.

The author’s suggestions have merit, but the start point is with citizens themselves. Whether we like it or not governments reflect the society they occur within.

Well said Adam.

I think a deeper reform is required - public funding of all candidates, no private funding at all. No advertising. Free air time slots for candidates. Just them and their policies.

Our democracy is systemically corrupt. The major parties do nothing to offend the big money, and big money pays the pipers.

Forkes gets my vote. Dig up ya guns!!

Just kidding ASIO.

People get frustrated when Governments don't do what they want them to, and anyone with a hint of cynism must look at our electoral system and see it is structurally corrupt.

Transparency of people and process with a healthy dose of the 2 strands set out by Paul@Bathurst sounds like the answer.

Now, if I could just find 76 MHRs and 39 Senators who would agree to forego their privileges and institute the necessary changes we could really move forward.

Oh Adam, me thinks you are trying to open Pandora’s box. And it should be opened. Not that the Australian public is ready for the kind of participation real democracy entails. Most do not even know the name of the PM never mind their local member.

You are correct though. Our current system is beyond a joke. So distant from their electorates’ are our political leaders they never look down to see who they are stepping on. Then there is the fallacy of representation.

You mention that electorates vote for a representative who is supposed to represent their interests. This does not happen particularly in Labor. Party members must vote along party lines or they loose their endorsement and most likely their seat and lovely salary and benefits.

There is no real representation. The only time an electorate reaps benefit is when they are marginal and an election is pending. In fact, common complaints from safe seats are that they see and hear little from their local member. The system is flawed but those who can change it benefit from it as it is and would never want it changed.

The best way to make the system more democratic and give power back to the people is to give them the power to vote for important issue directly. Take that power away from the politicians. Direct democracy is the answer; the implementation is another question entirely.

What we do need is a move away from the current status quo. The political gravy train is getting far too long and getting longer. Time to cut a few carriages loose.

Direct democracy is definitely the answer. To make it work, it’s got to begin at the level of the small community.

It seems to me that the question that we have missed out on exploring so far in this discussion is ‘what is democracy?’ Surely an answer to this question will provide us with the appropriate platform from which we can try to improve our current system.

In one sentence, I would say that the answer to this question is, ‘the search for democracy is the search for balance between our separateness as individuals and our connectedness as a community’. On the one hand we want to have a functional, stable society, and on the other hand we want to have freedom for individuals and distinct, smaller communities within the broader structure.

Both extreme freedom and extreme social cohesiveness are negative, being either anarchy or totalitarianism. If they are mixed together in the right balance, however, freedom and social cohesiveness actually support one another. This is democracy.

The concept of direct democracy, essentially whereby self-managing communities directly control their representatives within the government of a broader region, is obviously more democratic than representative democracy as it is currently realized within Australia. The question is in practicality.

To be effective, a directly democratic system of government will necessarily begin with small communities that are small enough so that they can effectively self-manage, with every member of the community having a voice in decision making. From here the system can be tiered up indefinitely, through villages, cities, states etc until we eventually end up with a beautifully democratic and decentralized intergallactic government.

Combine this with economic mechanisms that encourage diversity and local self-reliance rather than heavy specialization and trade, and we will be well on our way to a highly democratic, ecologically sustainable global human society. I can't wait!

I agree with those advocating some Direct Democracy, but ask again, how can they get that good idea implemented? Do you really expect the political parties who now govern to give some of their power away, even if it is back to the people? Without some strategy for convincing voters to get rid of the major parties, or perhaps assassinating the ringleaders if they fail to go, nothing is going to happen.

Hi Forkes,

The sight of people scratching their heads, pulling their hair out and saying 'I dunno what to do!' around this issue really drives me crazy.

If I can repeat my sentiment from the previous post: What we want to do is figure out what democracy looks like. Once we've figured that out then we can look to adapt our current system.

This discussion or any other regarding national sovereignty or global social change is academic, but it keeps us from the real travesty that underpins all the worlds woe's.

2% OF ADULTS OWN OVER 50% OF GLOBAL ASSETS
50% OF ADULTS OWN LESS THAN 1% OF GLOBAL ASSETS
10% OF ADULTS OWN 90% OF GLOBAL ASSETS.

Our "owners" who control the food production the fuel production and the credit facilities are happy with things as they are. Sure we can change internal laws but government does what is best for the "money" as exampled by the Gillard govts mining tax. Why not take on the banks, levy those bastards, there is no way any government would fight the financiers, they control our future due to lack of regulation by the govt who are our advocates, supposedly..

I agree here, with both the author's points about democratic shortcomings (especially considering the voice of the people is little more than choosing between a handful of mixed-bag flavors a few times a decade-

And I also agree with those advocating direct democracy.

To get it would require no more than one or more independents or party members advocating such a motion, that would be willing to put aside any other differences and form a coalition ONLY amongst fellow DD-advocates if elected, and then getting them promoted nationally in the media, and locally as candidates.

Ted Mack managed to get into parliament- the only problem was he sat alone because none of the other electrorates at the time either had, or voted in, a democratically-minded person themselves.

Direct democracy seems an attractive proposition, yet California’s budgetary woes can be traced to propositions passed by voters governing that state’s expenditure. Is government no more than an expression of popular sentiment? Think through history and pay head to some of the sentiments that prevailed and consider whether this is such a sure fired answer.

Gilbert’s position “What we want to do is figure out what democracy looks like. Once we've figured that out then we can look to adapt our current system” can be the critical question to answer. But then the old philosophical questions of who am I, what is the nature of society and what is the relationship between the 2 comes into play.

I made the point in an earlier post that government is determined by those who turn up. If one believes a political party fails to deliver then turn up and do something about it. Either we have what we believe in or what our apathy allows to happen.

Sonofgloin quotes:

“2% OF ADULTS OWN OVER 50% OF GLOBAL ASSETS
50% OF ADULTS OWN LESS THAN 1% OF GLOBAL ASSETS
10% OF ADULTS OWN 90% OF GLOBAL ASSETS”

Why should it be different? Why should there be an equal distribution of assets/wealth or anything else?

Not one word about the role that journalists should play in this brave new world.
I would suggest that journalists, too, have a very important part to play in keeping the politicians honest.

But, again, we face the problem of big monopolies running the news for their own agendas.

For instance no-one wants to breathe a word about Australia's invasion of Iraq. The most shameful episode in our recent history, because that would implicate some of our politicians who are still in government.

Paul @ Bathurst">> Why should it be different? Why should there be an equal distribution of assets/wealth or anything else?<<

Paul you miss read the post, there was no socialist declaration in that lot. I was qualifying a point regarding control in the hands of a few.

Son of Gloin, do you not remember even the Elves and Dwarves forged a friendship; and the friendship between socialism and democracy remains as those who have power use it for their own ends.

I had not thought of socialism in posing the question “Why should it be different? Why should there be an equal distribution of assets/wealth or anything else?”

Human nature appears to have always been based on those who had power used it for their advantage; look at the price of short commodities after a disaster or employees with rare skills negotiating a wage.

The distortions the quoted statistics point up is a matter of concern; in a world in which one has if one has resources the capacity to obtain necessities can be a problem.

What values make the above ‘wrong’?
What makes the skewed distribution of assets ‘wrong’?
Who made it necessary for everyone to have a ‘fair go’?

I came in half way on a radio program where an economic historian argued the USA’s rise as an economic power was attributable to Protestant beliefs, primarily ‘Servant Leaders’ who worked in the interests of all not themselves – and who earned 20 times the average salaries of their company. That person argued the advent of executives driven by self interest has led to decline with those executives earning 430 times the average.

My argument is such a value as the former creates the basis for answering the above 3 questions. To my understanding Socialism is the antithesis of such values, far more aligned to the values of self interest.

Paul @ Bathurst:>> The distortions the quoted statistics point up is a matter of concern;<<

Paul stats are stats, credible of themselves if factual, those are factual. My application of them as a marker to the miniscules control over the multitude was and is valid.

>> What values make the above ‘wrong’?
What makes the skewed distribution of assets ‘wrong’?
Who made it necessary for everyone to have a ‘fair go’?<<

Even though it was not my premise I will tell you what makes hoarding wealth wrong. Given we are the only creature endowed with a consciousness that comes with a morality it is wrong that we do not distribute the globes wealth equitably. It will never happen; we could not even manage it on a nation by nation basis as exhibited by the failure of socialist societies. But to not even recognize it as wrong is a concern, I believe with the legal system and a stable social base we have moved past dog eat dog, it's tough on your own.

>> the USA’s rise as an economic power was attributable to Protestant beliefs, primarily ‘Servant Leaders’ who worked in the interests of all not themselves – the advent of executives driven by self interest has led to decline with those executives earning 430 times the average.<<

I can see that. I was young middle management corporate in the eighties, a hell of a time; we made loads and bought companies so diverse from our core business that the businesses went downhill immediately but the appreciation of assets of the business more than made up for it. Things have calmed down but not changed, immediate return on investment is the expectation and business practices are conducted with that in mind, ruthless and immediate. The Protestant "servant leaders" you described had vision and patience and that is the platform for business stability, and business stability brings social stability.