Excellent article George Williams.

Especially where you say; "Australia needs a new agenda for reforming how it is governed. It needs to be bold in what it tackles, but also pragmatic and realistic, avoiding wherever possible the need to hold referendums until people become more comfortable with change. The strategy should focus on incremental reform, small achievements that generate the momentum needed for more significant improvements. History shows that there are no quick paths to success, only quick paths to failure. This means we need a forward-looking agenda that educates people and encourages them to be involved. We need to trust people so that they have a genuine say in shaping the future of Australian democracy".

And as Keith has said in another article: A lot more needed for an 'education revolution' ;

"'Our education system should be aimed at teaching students to think, to use language and mathematics effectively and to understand the importance of science, ethics and politics in their daily lives. Of course many of the established groups in our society would oppose an enlightened education but any thinking person should not be afraid of encouraging an enquiring mind in the next generation."'

( < http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6928 >)

The point is we must have the opportunity to evolve. Our system of government needs to reflect this evolution in all it principals and policies.

http://www.miacat.com

hard to believe a person educated in law could be so profoundly ignorant of reality. i suppose his mother told him about the emperor's new clothes, but clearly he did not re-visit the idea in philosophy 101.

perhaps he didn't do philosophy 101. he certainly never examined '1984' and the application of newspeak to australian english.

australia is not a democracy. not even close. it is legally a dictatorship of the governor general. that is the fundamental law of the land. it is daily flouted by the politicians who run parliament. when the leaders of society despise the rule of law, they are bandits, themselves contemptible.

the reason they operate in this shadowy, wink and nod fashion is simple:

the only two sources of legitimacy in society are god and the will of the people. as the british aristocrats had no intention of sharing their dominance of the monarch with the plebs, they preserved the monarchy as a conduit for god's approbation of their rule. the monarch got the appearance of relevance and status, parliament got the reality, and the plebs remained in the sheep pen.

the british had no need to call this state of affairs 'democracy', and didn't. churchill only insisted he lived in a democracy when he needed americans to help him fend off hitler.

in oz, this culture is preserved with a few superficial additions from the u.s.a. there is no democracy in it, for selection of leaders by voting is not democracy, it is elective oligarchy.

democracy will not breakout in oz anytime soon. oligarchs don't give power away, and the polititians guild has several regulations they all subscribe to, notably: pollies rule! the people of oz will have to take power if they want it. they don't, any more than sheep want to run the station.

parliamentary rule will continue to be ineffectual in meeting the challenges of global warming and resource exhaustion. the people of oz will suffer in result, but oz culture simply can not be active suddenly, when everyone in it has been raised to submit to the power of parliament.

I'm with you DEMOS. I particularly loved this oxymoron:

'Political leaders must take charge and be prepared to devolve real power to the people.'

Duh...!

'pollies rule! the people of oz will have to take power if they want it. they don't, any more than sheep want to run the station.
'

Classic! So true.

I was waiting for the author to explain why the powers that be would want to give up their power. Why would a true democracy interest those who already had the power?

I think a few viewings of 'Yes, Minister' are in order.

I basically agree, We are not really citizens so much as we are still subjects of the British empire. We are not remotely like the larrikans we imagine ourselves to be. We are, in general, orderly subjects who do not really question authority.

I am afraid that DEMOS completely fails to understand the westminster system when he claims that the Governor-General is a legal dictator. He may have the command in chief of the armed forces. He may be able to appoint and dismiss ministers at will (as did John Kerr). There is only one thing he cannot do, and that is vital. He cannot get supply. Supply (the money to run the government) can only be granted by Parliament, and, as we found out in 1975, it requires the assent of both houses to obtain it. That is why Whitlam was dismissed.

I fully support expanding the role of the people in our governmental system, and think that the best way forward would be to give the people what the Swiss have had for centuries, and even the Canadians for decades - citizen initiated referendums. It should be possible for the people to enact legislation in the teeth of the opposition of the entire political and legal establishment. If they are unable to dissuade the people from a course of action they should not hold their current positions. A package providing for a republic as well as citizen initiated referendums would even have my vote, and may well succeed.

Of course if this were ever to come about, the first citizen initiated referendum would have to be about bringing back hanging.