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!

I think Douglas Adams summed it up about right:

"On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

untutored mind,

When I worked with Westpac c. 1991: The Bank claimed four billion dollars in bad loans. In fact, it was six billion dollars. Ordinary, trading bank loans are classified 101 accounts. 102-104 being various degrees on being unproductive. When the big companies were near to going under, the Bank would keep the principal as a 101 account type and show the overdue debt at as a 104 account type, One billion dollars of the debt at risk was not report to the RBA. Office accounts also seemed to have a one billion bulge. And we critique Enron.

Misleading and Misleaded. Australia needs to clean up it's ACT.

The Federal Police's role in those BAli person's 'muled" now facing the DEATH PENALTY? Needs a National Conversation.

Australia's public response to SEX OFFENDERS who'd done time, + who wear a BAND - with nowhere to live? Juxtaposed with the Church hiding or protecting sexual perpetrators is conterminous.? Needs a National Converstion

Australia's role in Iraq, Afghanistan and all others Wars given the cost of this form of leadership? Juxtaposed, is the war on our own streets and how we deal NOT with it. Who are those real Civic Hero's we fail to celebrate, working to protect the meaning of our everyday things in a NOT so everyday LIFE? Needs a National Converstion.

Australia IGNORANCE on Statistics, issues with Casual Labour, indicators of Household Disturbances, Debt, Mental Health and the causal elements of Crime. Our Treatment of those Displaced, being the Elderly, Indigenous, Migrants, Disablities and other minorities groups including Refugees. Needs a National Conversation.

Australia's role in the ABW's, the Tamper, the so called Marshalls distractions, the Selling our public Assets, the extent of multi-national worker redundancies ie: Telstra, Airlines, Manufacturing plants, the focus on non-sustaining business choices in economic's . Needs focus and more economic balance... a new form ethic based on a National Converstion.

The administrive abuse under policy and in the Law, be day-to-day, it the Terror Laws or those at street level. The lack of access and the burden of proof, the FINES and outragous double standards given to ineffective administrations, including the media, needs scrutinising through a National Conversation.

These are a handful of issues that politicians avoid, as they have in health, bullying in the workplace, bullying and scape-goating in politic's, and the serious fabrications impacting issues like water and climate change.

The Social and Economic indices issues that contribute and result in long-term break-down of all that is "Australian", given we have national knowlege to help ourselves make the difference.

There is a Kettle calling a Pot Black.

It is credulous and begs a TIME TO GET REAL.

http://www,miacat.com
.

I believe that the gist of the article indicates a trend in thinking that is emerging more and more regularly. However, (and there is always an 'however, isn't there?), how powerless are we when we turn up at the ballot box on voting day and are presented with the same assortment of people who regard us as merely a resource?
Our representatives aren't elected, they float to power on a raft of IOU's from whatever vested interest groups it is convenient to be involved with at the time.
There is no simplistic answer to this situation, but it may begin if a single reporter insists on a straight answers to a question, or if a single politician decides to run on their record and not their (deniably phrased)promise.

I think the author has it all wrong. We cannot trust ethics or goodness of heart. The only sure foundation on which a system can be built is "self interest". It is true that for many of us there is a struggle between ethics and self interest, but when the chips are down human nature will opt for self interest, be it the self interest of self, family, tribe, state, nation or maybe some supra national identification. There are many contradictions to this general law - folk who suffer or die for their principles, but the best bet is on self interest rather than on altruism. And, before I am silenced by the howls of protest, we are enormously skilled at presenting our selfish preferences in some kind of altruistic garb.
So what we need is a system of governance that is based on the sure foundation of self interest, but self interest that is put under some kind of leash to protect those who would be exploited. Social democratic governments seem to come closest to this. If we were all more open to the truth, sometimes unpalatable, our politicians would have less need to spin and lie.

An interesting article, but it didn't come up with any ideas how to encourage Australians to demand more from their governments.

Australians have so far been lucky in that a small, isolated population live in a bountiful land with plenty of space.

We are extraordinarily wealthy in mineral resources. Until fairly recently, very wealthy in important agricultural products.

It is amusing to see how many Australians firmly believe that our life style and wealth is somehow due to some special intelligence, cultural inheritance or indeed prime minister.

We will continue to have governments of little imagination and very short vision precisely because Australians have little imagination or vision. It has been too easy for us. We've never seriously had to think of our long term future and previously never had to think at all about how the rest of the world impacts on us.

Political discourse and ideas for our future have to go beyond the silly 'left' wing-'right' wing slagging. It's so last century.

Demos, having a more direct say in government would be great, but first you need a reasonably educated population. Australians are overwhelmingly political/economic illiterates. That's why it is so easy for any politician to say whatever they like. The majority will take as gospel whatever is said by a politician from the party they vote for. And why do they vote for a particular party? Because they've aligned themselves to the 'left' or 'conservatives', usually with little reason that can be articulated rationally.