.

Dear Grim,

.

According to The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2011, the top ten most democratic countries in the world were as follows:

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Denmark
4. Sweden
5. New Zealand
6. Australia
7. Switzerland
8. Canada
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

The UK ranks 18 and the USA 19. Indonesia is 60 and North Korea ranks last at 167.

The Intelligence Unit notes that almost one-half of the world’s population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 11% reside in full democracies (25 countries in all).

Though it does not correspond to your criteria, I have a soft spot for Iceland, its people and their way of life. I spent a few months there during my travels when I first arrived in Europe many years ago, working on an Icelandic fishing trawler in the Arctic ocean.

Its population of 320 000 is not much more than was that of Ancient Athens and its region, Attica, from the 6th to the 4th century BC during the golden era of democracy. Two thirds of the population live in the capital, Reykjavik.

It is the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world, having created the world's first parliament, the Althing, in the year 930 AD.

The president is elected by popular vote for a term of four years, with no term limit. The elections for president, the Althing and local municipal councils are all held separately every four years.

The country is known for its gender equality (rated first in the world) and 13th in Yale University's Environmental Performance Index 2012. Iceland has no armed forces.

The Norwegians are wonderful people too. They must still be pretty shocked by the mass killings perpetrated by Anders Breivik in July 2011.

.

.

Dear landrights4all,

.

" ... it is clearly untrue to say that there isn't enough space for everyone to have a home and a veggie garden. There is plenty of space for that."

The populations of the capital cities of the five States of Australia in 2011 were as follows:

Sydney .......... 4,605,992
Melbourne ..... 4,169,103
Brisbane ........ 2,146,577
Perth .............. 1,832,114
Adelaide ........ 1,262,940

Of those populations, what are your estimates of the number of people who would qualify for land hand-outs for each capital city and where would those plots of land be located?

Take the case of a hotel maid living in the heart of each capital city. Where would her plot of land be located? Who would build her shelter? How much would it cost? Who would pay for it?

If she had to relocate to get the benefit of the shelter, how would she commute to and from work? Who would pay for that? If she has one or more children, where would they go to school? Are there shopping centres and all the usual commodities close by?

If there are several tens of thousands of people involved in each city, would they all live in ghettos on the outskirts of the cities as in the suburban slums of India?

Or would they be scattered around the country in isolation where, as you say, "there is plenty of space for that", e.g., in Central Australia where the current population is only about 60 000, of which 50% aboriginal?

Can you give us a few practical examples of how it would work for real people?

.

G'day Banjo,
A list of the world's most democratic countries doesn't really address the issue of whether or not Democracy is actually a good thing.
The classic simple argument against democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. In a pure democracy there is no rule of law, only the will of the majority. There is no “significant minority; the only rights minorities have are those conferred by the majority. If 51% (or 50.0000001%, in a large enough constituency) vote one way, it's tough luck for the rest.
It seems the distinction I quoted appears to have become outmoded (it was common in the 90's). More modern distinctions focus on the Rule of Law -in constitutional republics- but this isn't really a distinction as it's theoretically possible to have a constitutional (limited) democracy.
(In both cases, the elected representative should bow to the will of the constituents -but only within the legal framework).
I think Jardine would enjoy this link:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

A representative's democratic duty was discussed by Edmund Burke:

“...it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.”

But here he highlights the difference between the pure democratic model and the constitutional (or Republican) model:

“But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Continued:
The question is, how much of each? Which should the rep. Weigh more heavily, his own opinion or his constituents?
Our politicians live on the knowledge that voters have notoriously short memories. They can get away with remarkable transgressions early in their tenure, as long as they deliver a tax cut just prior to the next election.
The inherent weaknesses of the Democratic system can only be overcome by the rule of Law, and strictly defined powers. The separation of powers is a great idea (IMO) but is more apparent than real -especially in Australia, where there is no real separation between the legislature and the executive, and the judiciary are political appointees.
A Bill of Rights should -in theory- be defended in the courts, but this is unsatisfactory for several reasons; not least of which is the matter of who can afford the best legal representation, and parliament's insistence that it's power should over-ride the Bill anyway.
I maintain, the only way a BOR can be truly effective is if it is protected by the Head of State, who has strictly defined powers to combat the majority rule of parliament and defend and protect minorities and individuals.

Hi Banjo,
Firstly, it is wrong to characterise what I am suggesting as “hand-outs” which implies something given by someone who owns (perhaps as charity or welfare), something undeserved and without strings attached ... and something more than what most people have already, hence, I guess, your fear about how much land it would involve which might impact negatively on property markets.

.. the eligible numbers question
As I said, only those who have too little secure access to land for housing based on income of $A250wk (no one has less as that is the unemployment benefit and all are eligible for that much at least). People with higher incomes than that already have at least their rightful access to resources (land).

In addition to that income restriction, another restriction that would limit numbers is that only those who would limit their land use to simply housing themselves and growing some veggies (10sq m is enough for a family of 4). Doing this sustainably would be a commitment, consistent with the reasoning that they have a landright to house and feed themselves. As there are many things involved in housing and growing veggies, there are many ways to meet that commitment, but it would require accountability for participation. I’ve calculated 15hrs/wk doing approved activities around building/maintenance & gardening.

To begin with, the invitation would be to those unemployed already in public housing who pay 25% of their income in rent (count this as rent for building materials/labour, NOT land rent) – either they continue to meet their mutual obligations as usual, looking for paid work or studying for a job, or they adopt the right and responsibility as described above. Initial numbers would be small, but enough to trial the model.

contd

contd
back again Banjo

Let’s be generous and say that over time, if it proved attractive (say after 5 years), up to half the unemployed in public housing might be interested, the other half wanting instead to get more than $250 ASAP, consequently leaving less time for 15hrs/wk ‘homework’. If it was as productive as hoped, perhaps other unemployed not in public housing would like to participate in building public housing for themselves .... ultimately this could become half of the unemployed workforce? ... perhaps some retirees would round it up to 5%. Public housing would be expanded at very reduced cost to taxpayers, skills would be developed and neighbourhoods revitalised.

Once people have that physical security, Maslow says most people then look further afield. Some will continue to dedicate themselves to improving the model, but many (?most?) will want to use their new skills to get some extra money. Your hotel maid would fall into that bracket. As income increases, birthright reduces, & so rent should increase, just as is now the case in public housing.

So there is a natural plateau to the numbers interested but an ?infinite? capacity to expand the opportunity to meet the needs of a growing population, whatever the economic circumstances.

Similarly, my proposal doesn’t involve additional transport/services/infrastructure – it is a proposal for existing and expanding public housing in the cities, not a fringe or isolated area idea. It isn’t a slum issue either – can you imagine what a difference it would make to public housing? ... community gardens, cooperation, skills development? I should also emphasise that this is not about food/transport/medical self sufficiency as you seem to think ... it is about contributing a valuable role in the neighbourhood, being part of society with the benefits of that & enjoying the modern but modest life that even a low income can afford, especially once security around housing and food are achieved, cooperative skills are gained and sharing is developed. See http://bit.ly/YD3L01

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman