Great article Kellie. Movements like WL and Occupy are testatment to an evolving response against the worst aspects of neo-liberalism and moreso the threats to democratic principles. This can only be restored through access to uncorrupted information ie. greater transparency. The rhetoric of transparency is often heard in election campaigns but rarely does this translate into real reform, other than some ineffectual tinkering at the edges.

Removing the power base further away from the citizenry at the behest of an elite (in any form) eventually has a revolutionising effect as evidenced many times throughout history.

It is not about choosing between 'isms' but improving governance and representation. This cannot be achieved by Capitalism/neo-liberalism run amok nor through extremes of Socialism and Communism. We are already lucky to have a system of social democracy it just needs to be tweaked to deal with extremes such as the excesses of capitalism.

The author is not declaring women to be any better than the male counterparts only to consider when entering these newish domains to be mindful. I am not sure this will have any effect, women have achieved much in the last 20 years in terms of accessing jobs once reserved for men, but not much has changed. Women are just as guilty of buying into the neo-liberal paradigm as men. We have to get away from this men/women business and look at these problems from a humanistic and holistic view. Afterall what happens affects all of us, man, woman and child, distractions over gender is just that, a distraction from the purpose.

My reading of the article was that it was pointing out we largely have a plutocracy in charge, regardless of degrees of parliamentary democracy. Will tweakig australia's social democracy make any real change to the domination of oil companies over the world's resources, or change the growing economic domination of China over the word's productive industry? Even if you read Confucious as well as Machievelli and throw in a bit of Marx I can't quite see how this would work - please explain the practical details, pelican.

farfromtheland
Firstly, there is no perfect 'solution', only potential improvements. Human beings are not perfect so any devised system will reflect those imperfections.

However, within the status quo there is vast potential through direct democracy whether it be via local or national referenda on issues like free trade, social housing or mining taxes (excluding the minutae of governing such as potholes in roads).

It would not be too difficult to come to a consensus around which issues would involve direct participation and which are best left to representation.

The biggest ally any organisation has is secrecy. It is secrecy which aids and abets a plutocracy. I suspect this is why Wikileaks has gained more support than it's detractors might otherwise have assumed.

A government that governs for the people has to include the people. Part of that comes in access to information whether it be political donations, ministerial dealings with the corporate sector or negotiations with other governments. Basically any lobbying of government should be 'seen' without censure, common when requesting documents under FOI under sometimes suspect exclusions.

If the public had access to the information that the WMDs in Iraq were bogus, the decision to enter into a war would have been highly scrutinised.

I cannot see how a dictatorship or a communist model will improve on that scenario while at the same time ensuring certain freedoms for it's citizens. A social democracy is probably the best point from which to start as it's framework is more fluid eg. through it's ability to adapt and change through passing legislation.

I cannot see how China's domination over production or the power of oil companies can be solved but the decisions our own government make can be better enhanced through democracy. I don't claim to be an expert only someone tossing out some ideas. If you have other ideas please share them.

It is important to consider many different views but the best approach IMO is in transferring influence back to the constituency.

Hmm, pelican, I agree very much about transferring influence to the constituency and direct democracy - it's the mechanisms for this that are problematic, along with a degree of public apathy (for want of a better word.) And access to information is key - but so is an educated motivated populace to make use of it. Right now we are being educated to consume more than paricipate.

Power structures tend to congeal around the interests of the establishment. It's in their nature. It might start with people wanting to get good stuff done, like the welfare state - and mutate into an administrative monster; or it might be conscious manipulation by economic power blocks - witness the SOPA attempts to suppress internet freedom in the US under the banner of stopping piracy.

It is not at all easy to decide which issues to decide by referenda, which to decide locally and which regionally or nationally either. The main thing we need is accountability. If 'representatives' (I prefer 'delegates' by the way) have to justify decisions to the people, and follow a mandate, then a lot of the scope for abuse of power is removed. If most people prefer to watch tv than engage in practical politics, though, it just doesn't work. And there need to be 2 parallel inter-related mechanisms. Communities need direct local control and workplaces too. If communities run the local work economy they are as likely to make mistakes as profit-motivated bosses, because they lack the relevant expertise, and don't see the bigger picture. Then there are the areas where workers and communities have to work very much together, like distribution of goods.

I believe we need federated networks of people getting together to run society first from local bases. Neighbourhood meetings can decide what they want and delegate people to manage their interests, as well as choosing people to go to regional meetings and discuss how to co-ordinate things more broadly. Then there has to be feedback to the local level so that the bigger issues get discussed there too and everyone can be properly informed before decisions are made on their behalf. It would be a slower process than we have now, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but does give an excuse for powerful interests to argue it is inefficient.

This goes a bit further than reform of the existing system, which as you say runs on lack of information rather than participation. Some people did know the Iraq WMDs were faked. David Kelly died shortly after making this information public. It takes a brave soul to do this. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange have not had an easy ride, either.

Substantial reform has powerful enemies. It is usually suppressed before it has a chance to work. I don't think we can get very far without completely changing the parameters. In the UK we have new laws against political and trade union action, along with austerity measures to deal with 'debt', which are making a lot of people very afraid. Most people have mortgages and they face losing their homes if they don't comply with this repression, which is being applied under the 'rule of law'. Sooner or later we have to decide what is more important - freedom or compliance. I know which I prefer, but I've spent a lot of time building up a support network which means I'm not too economically dependent on the state culture.

Meanwhile the world's resources are being squandered and the rich are getting richer. Basically I'm saying we need a complete social revolution or we're all stuffed.

An excellent summary of problems that have beset humanity's efforts at fair and just government since tribes first settled and became 'civilizations'. Clearly, the only thing that changes is the power of the 'weapons'.
Like Houellebecq, I was amused at the final paragraph. There's no evidence to suggest that females govern differently from men.

Pelican wants consensus. So do I, but that's a dirty word in most circles.

farfromtheland would like local consultation and referenda. What would be the point while we have Party Politics in which a hundred representatives all vote as one, according to their leader's directive? Genuine democracy is not compatible with Parties. Only when the parliament is filled with genuine independents [advised by experts] who discuss all motions under the direction of a rotating chairperson [not a dictator PM], and decide by consensus, will there be hope for democratic decency. The parliament must be the government. There is no place in a democracy for presidential style Prime Ministers and party pressure.