With Kevin Blair-Howard set to take over as PM, and the Greens barely keeping a lid on its extremist elements, the Democrats are now Australia's remaining party of considered policy-makers and social conscience. It will be a tragedy if they're marginalised out of existence.

sancho, if you think politics is a 3 hanky soap-opera, then losing the dems is a tragedy. but the reality is more like this:

the dems had no ideas, so finally sold themselves for someone else's ideas and a seat, briefly, on the six o clock news. hellooo gst! goodbye any reason to support a party that could be bought so cheaply.

grow up, sancho. if you want peace, write peace! on your ballot, not some pollie's name. better yet, write 'democracy!' on your ballot.

Positioning in the middle ground (centrism) is a different phenomenon alltogether from respectfull engagement of opponents.

For example. The Democrats role in diluting the original Native title legislation.
There was great conflict between Aboriginal and mainstream agendas that were being thrashed out. The Democrats only relevence to this was that they had the balance of power in the senate at the time. They did not mediate or facilitate the two sides, they took a middle ground position within a mainstream, white paradigm. The result of this was they supported the least radical and most compliant of the Aboriginal negotiating groups (all the A team and B team stuff) and were responsible for the undermining of the native title notion, making it a process for extinguishing Aboriginal rights rather than enforcing them. The Democrats sold out the original purpose of native title for the sake of a compromise that was only convenient to one side of the conflict.

Non-violent conflict resolution has nothing to do with the middle ground. It is dialectical in that the outcome is new and fresh, not a compromise between the thesis and antithesis. This necessarily requires the ability to think outside the box - to transcend the status-quo and its established agenda. By definition, a centrist party cannot do this without betraying its status quo mandate. The democrats cannot lead, they can only participate in status-quo mediocrity. They can only represent notions of "normal".

The fence that the Democrats sit on is not the middle ground of any conflict but well within the territory of the status-quo. Centrism is about the common denominator of the mainstream, not about radical process of resolving conflict.

To imply that the Democrats may be a manifestation of Ghandian philosophy is a bit too colouful a writing style for my liking.

To James – Aust Democrats

Good on you, James - though unfortunately, reckon there’s not much chance for peace with Dick Cheney dead set on knocking out Iran.

Bush is also out to make sure they grant him his spacial platform to knock out any earthly spot in a twinkling.

Such news can now give substance to more than a few of our OLO’s who often talk about backing the big league US of A, more sure now now doubt, because Bush has forgiven his main enemy in Iraq, Saddam’s Baath Party Sunnis, and declaring the Iraqi Shias whom he gallantly moved into save now his main enemy because they happen to be related to the Iranian Shias.

And now we turn to Iran, whom America developed so much hate for since they kicked out the fake Iranian Shah, and held the US Embassy staff prisoner for over a year. Then Donald Rumsfeld saw his chance in 1981 to kid Saddam to knock out Iran once and for all. But once again America lost out, Saddam’s Iraqis soundly thrashed after eight years of fighting.

Now it seems America has her chance to knock out Iran once again, Dick Cheney the Vice –Pres’ seemingly much more eager than Bush, no doubt his mind on the oil.

Finally, the very fact that the only mention that Howard has made on today’s situation in Iraq is that he is so happy that the situation has quietened down for the better.

Reckon the only genuine title for it, however, is all quiet now on the Western Front, ready for the biggest ever bang further East next year.

Now my own experience of our academic historians is that they did not come down in the last shower, even though among our contributors, many, especially the females have been called left-wing loonies.

So it looks like we will be having our own academic revolution, and as far as this one is concerned, I’m afraid though I'm desperately for peace, if war is forced on Iran, I am hoping Iran comes out on top once again.

Actually, DEMOS, if you visit the Dem's web page you'll discover that they in fact have lots of good ideas, most of which arose out of doing what pollies are meant to do: scrutinise legislation and research and form policies based on equitable outcomes, rather than pursuing purely ideological goals and buying votes prior to an election.

"Grow up"? Where did you learn to conduct an adult debate like this? In the quadrangle, or during after-school detention?

No one has ever been able to explain why those who oppose the so called war mongers are usually the most violent people in our country. They don't know the meaning of peaceful demonstration thinking it okay to throw urine and abuse at anyone that disagrees with their opinions. This is now showing to be the case with a lot of people protesting against so called global warming. Maybe if the Democrat and Greens supporters learn what peace means they might gain a little credibility.

Runner, if you read a bit of history, you'll find that political protestors are usually a bit raggedy, like you say, yet they are called the Avante-Guarde by philosophers, and believe it or not, the young Jesus was inclined to mix with them, even rough fishermen.

Also they're not often con-men, smooth types we've had to run out of town in the bush in the the old days - one or two even found in bed with a cockie's wife

I've read Don Chipp's book "Keep the bastards honest" and it's a real eye-opener as he explains how he was sucked into the pro-Vietnam debate. He always said it was his biggest regret and he was absolutely devastated when John Howard decided to go to war in Iraq.

I know that the Democrats leader, Lyn Allison, has been doing a lot of work trying to ban the use of cluster bombs by the Australian military and Jim Page is right.....she's been painted a left-wing nutter as a result. Apparently if you oppose collateral damage (aka civilian death and injury) your opinions aren't worth squat.

Having a well-equipped military is an unfortunate necessity but being forced to fight fair is just too much of an effort for some it seems.

Democrats amending Native Title. Er, I was working with the ALP at that time in Canberra and the Dems made no such amendments. They passed it.

A pretty good article. Personally I wasn't too upset when they passed the GST. I didn't believe in taxing food or books but I could see the benefits of a broadbased consumption tax. The way the Dems went about it and the bickering and inflighting afterwards effectively killed them off as a political force.

I agree that things started to go down hill for the Dems back in 96 with the Kernot defection. Actually, their vote had been declining even before that.

Still, way before the Greens were on the scene the Dems were the only voice fighting for peace in the middle east and fighting - sometimes literally - racial prejudice.

Bushbred

To somehow suggest that the Democrats never had any conman or women is a bit rich. You had the defectors (one notable unsavoury incident in particular.) There is not a party that has not got people unaffected by the adamic nature or being just human if that is more pc. My point is that if they are so peaceful(in theory) why are they the more likely to demonstrate violently than any other part of our community. Somehow I could not see Jesus throwing urine on police. He might drive out money changers out of the temple but He even allowed the Romans to take Him away to be crucified when He could easily of got out of it. Now thats radical.

runner: "No one has ever been able to explain why those who oppose the so called war mongers are usually the most violent people in our country. They don't know the meaning of peaceful demonstration thinking it okay to throw urine and abuse at anyone that disagrees with their opinions... Maybe if the Democrat and Greens supporters learn what peace means they might gain a little credibility."

Runner's at it again with his tiresome mantra, but this time I'll call him on it.

If runner has any evidence that "Democrats and Greens supporters" have ever "thrown urine and abuse at anyone that disagrees with their opinions" at any kind of demonstration, he should put it up here.

Otherwise he should shut up.

to Runner,

i'm not sure if you'll ever read this post, but don't you think it's overstepping yourself to say that green protests are inevitably violent and this violence is inevitably caused by people supporting the democrats and greens? kind of a big leap if you ask me.

Cheryl,

The Democrats passing the native title bill is what I mean. The bill put to parliament was negotiated and agreed to by the "A" team. The bill with more substance and broader indigenous support - the "B" team would have required the Democrats to use the balance of power to ammend. But they cut the B team out of negotiations instead. This was bureacratic administration from the middle ground, not conflict resolution.

King Canute said:

"Non-violent conflict resolution has nothing to do with the middle ground. It is dialectical in that the outcome is new and fresh, not a compromise between the thesis and antithesis."

WORKABLE FRAMEWORK

Canute...I suggest that such a process is only possible when the framework allows it. i.e. when the point of reference for the opposing sides is not connected to 'unchangable divine mandates which dictate violence as a very workable solution'

PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS
In this connection, I can see wide scope for non violent conflict resolution as in the Civil Rights movement, because they followed the example of Jesus, who never said to solve conflict by violence, rather by love. When he said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword" he was referring to the swords drawn against those who embrace the kingdom of God, not the other way around.

VIOLENT SOLUTIONS
By contrast, many of the commandments in the Quran are specifically violent.
One situation addressed there is "fight against those who have turned you out of your houses", which on the surface seems fair enough, but if you apply this say to Spain, where the 'your houses' are in fact the houses of Christians taken by the Invading Muslims.. they will still apply such a verse as a mandate for violent response. There are theological reasons for this concerning the idea of "Muslim lands". Any land invaded and taken by force is thereafter an "Islamic Waqf"..this can be legitimately defended against those who, strangely enough, want their property BACK.

I'd be very interested in how you see the idea of 'peaceful conflict resolution' working in such scenarios.. any thoughts?

You sound to have not been around much, Runner. I said the Avante Guarde has always been composed of a few scallywags, and as many of their leaders were philosophers, nearly every beneficial turn in history was begun by them.

Also as I said before, Jesus was also the friend of fishermen, and because I often boozed with such at Jurien Bay when younger well west of where our farm still is, did find them a bit rough-natured but always ready to stop and help a person when broken down on a country road.

Wouldn't say that about all I've come across?

Cheers - BB, WA

Boaz David,

As I see it the non violent path requires the abandonment of prejudice and adversarial modes. Your juxtaposition of Christianity and Islam is an example of the sort of prejudice that obstructs non violent solutions.

Ghandi was a follower of Jesus. For Ghandi this meant transcending religious and cultural barriers and finding a common humanity, not just between Hindus, Moslems and Christians but also between Indians and British.

Non violence is the negotiating process amongst opponents, not the preaching of fine principles.

It seems to me that the only people capable of creating peace are those engaged in or with the capacity to engage in war. Peace is, by simplistic definition the absense of war. The only people who can stop war are those who are actually doing it.

Non violence requires open mindedness and a willingness to put aside preconcieved expectations and assumptions about who is right and wrong. If, like you BD, you have a religious and cultural position that is absolute and that absolute is the starting point for dialogue then you will walk straight into the adversarial mode which is the essense of war.

In terms of non violence, spirituality is that which causes a warmonger to transcend prejudice and consider nonviolent solutions. If spirituality (or more accurately religion) is that which entrenches the opinion of an adversary then it is an obstacle to peace, a pillar of the conflict.

Given his silence, I guess we can take it that runner has no "evidence that 'Democrats and Greens supporters' have ever 'thrown urine and abuse at anyone that disagrees with their opinions' at any kind of demonstration".

Just another fundamentalist Christian liar who has no compunction about telling porkies in order to try and defame those of whom he doesn't approve. There's a few of those around here, aren't there?

The extinction of he Democrats is well deserved.

Once they had relevance, when they meant to 'keep the bastards hones'. Then I was a Democrat voter.

What they became was a self-righteous vehicle for middle-class moral status display, and the backbone came to be made up of watermelon peaceniks, those 'useful idiots' of totalitarian states. This put them at existential risk.

Their doom was sealed by the formation of the Green party, which co-opted their re-defined constituency.