I agree entirely with the thrust and much of the detail of this article. How does the author propose to move us from the sluggish apathy he describes to a vibrant, ethically strong sense of our responsibility as citizens?

To suggest that nearly everyone including the UN believed that IRAQ did not have weapons of mass destruction is deceitful at best. Whether we should of gone to war or not is another arguement.

don, it's easy: make the management of the nation responsive to the electorate by instituting citizen initiative and direct election of ministers. add open government to make sure the citizens get what they voted for. there's a name for this kind of society, since aristotle got his professorship, it's been called 'democracy'.

ozzies pay little attention to politics because it's a secret craft here, with a guild of politicians of various factions united in one principle: pollies rule, people don't.

how to get there from here? you can't. people raised in british societies have a stunted sense of political identity, they genuinely feel "it's too hard for the likes of us."

young people may escape from the dead hand of oligarchy, in a slow evolutionary process, but a drift into '1984' seems more likely today.

The author makes a cogent argument in favour of the idea that our political system is indeed base and corrupt.

Sadly, this does not differentiate us in any way from the rest of the world.

"Government" has become an entity that exists in and of itself. The notion that these constructs are somehow responsible to the people they represent has become quaintly old-fashioned.

It is almost immaterial which country's government you examine; they are all remarkably similar, in principle if not in detail.

The first indication that a government is venal and corrupt is the concept that they have money of their own. "Government handouts" are a daily feature of our lives - especially at election time - despite the fact that we are aware at an intellectual level that the government has no money except that of its citizenry.

This concept - that the money is somehow "theirs", rather than "ours" - is highly indicative of a government's contempt for their own people.

We excoriate tinpot dictators who help themselves and their cronies to large sums of the funds in their grasp, which they proceed to squirrel away into Swiss bank accounts.

But seriously, how great is the difference, really, between them and the politicians who blatantly "pork barrel" our money at every election?

Or again, what is the difference between our politicians' regular rorting of their perks and privileges of office, and that of the tinpot dictator? Except perhaps the magnitude of the sum involved.

But we turn a blind eye instead of insisting they go to jail for lies and deceit. Yep, we get what we deserve all right.

The situation, unfortunately, is a bit like alcoholism. The cure is not in our hands, but that of the alcoholic (politicians) themselves. One remedy would be to institute a Bill of Rights whose sole purpose is to ensure the government a) keeps the promises it makes b) eschews actions it commits not to take and c) does all this for free, as a public service to the country's citizens.

Can't see that happening, short of a revolution.

Mulder, a sociologist from the 1970s, observed that as people are elevated socially they will try to decrease power been themselves and people and above then and increase power between themselves and people below themselves. Often in a democracy which is "meant" to be run bt The People" this means those with reigns simple lie.

Tony Abbott on the 7.30 Report gave a clear indication he would provide policy on PET scanners to cancer victims by end July 2007. He didn't and has still said nothing, despite pleas from many quarters. George Pell was asked to comment, wherein he replied, he could not do on this matter of Life and Death before an election. Yet, one week later in SMH comment the Church has an obligation to comment on appropiate topocs.

I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State,however, in issues of Life and Death, concerning keeping living people alive, temporal comment from a Church leader is fair comment. You see, Pell is identifying with politicians [Abbott, in particular], not the lowly sheep in his congregartion. Its the Church and the Nobility all over again. Forget the bread eating peasant.

Our trust in our leaders should be limited.

O.

Runner, no doubt many believed that WMD’s were in Saddam’s possession, we were meant to all the media said he had as did our politicians and doubtless a few fundamentalist Christians said so as well!
He was a threat having territorial ambition, could hit America could, and so on and murdered at will. We hanged him!
The Downing street memos the first of which was leaked by the British press copied by a few, very few of Australia’s informative media even the ABC claimed it added little to our knowledge, said the opposite of what we were all told and that the message, propaganda was being fitted round the aim-invasion!
Such of course comes from trusting one’s leaders-politicians but there were others of the same mind bent.
As to any ethics surely they are replaced by the market after all if you have a market win how you arrived is unimportant-mostly. A few Enron, HIH are found to be illegal I.e. contrary to the laws of competition business etc but hardly unethical. The rest just get bigger and bigger. If you doubt read Dan Brody’s The Halliburton Agenda. It is still in print and so far as I am aware has had no court case claiming individuals are maligned.
We deal in sound bites, spin not ethics. Too hard on the brain old chap, if the media says something believe it, after all you probably saw it on TV in between the game shows!