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.