Saltpetre

I agree we need to keep asking the big questions and testing major assumptions and conventional practice - that democrats should read Plato’s Republic, and conservatives JS Mill and John Rawls, not just Burke, Friedman and Ayn Rand, and that everyone should read Dickens.

Experience suggests that even minor constitutional changes will be problematic, and major changes occur in crises fraught with the risk of civil war or violent overthrow of rulers. The question is whether our problems are systemic, requiring radical reforms, or whether they have more to do with human nature, calling for a change in attitudes and practices. Representative democracy evolved over centuries and, while Westminster government has its faults, it seems no worse than other democratic systems.

I believe our system is as good as any, and that it is unlikely to see criminals like Richard Nixon, or gullible and servile people like George W Bush, wield great power. But it could be better. I would like to begin at square one and ask whether elected politicians, paid from the public purse, owe a higher duty to the community than to parties and their leaders.

Although parties in his time were merely alliances of members with similar views, Edmund Burke had no doubt - their primary duty was to serve the community by informing themselves and acting on their own judgment. I believe this is the only way to respect community values. It is also an interpretation of political duty which might have led to a different approach to both the apology and the Iraq War.

I enjoyed the discussion. Once again, you might consider working up a paper yourself. You will find it a time-consuming and frustrating, but also fascinating, exercise.

Thanks Max, and keep up the good work. You make good sense, and your suggested change of attitude towards principal focus of service could do much to improve the quality of debate and outcomes, and accountability to the electorate - without invoking too much angst all round. Question may be whether parliament, or government, can operate effectively with a looser 'alliance' of like-minded representatives (or if the electorate will cotton to the idea), but then, the current situation federally with a number of minors and independents substantively holding a balance of power in the House of Reps would indicate that it could work quite well indeed. Come the election, we will see if the electorate recognizes and values the contributions of these particular individuals, and if so, from small beginnings ... (hoping they will be standing). An Independent in Cabinet might raise some eyebrows, but also open eyes to further possibilities. (Rob Oakeshott or Tony Windsor, anyone?)

Still, the majors will be a hard nut to crack.

We live in interesting times.

Best regards, P.