“Public opinion and debate does count. One has only to view Rudd’s many radio interviews in the immediate days after a Newspoll (December 3, 2009) suggested declining support for Labor because of its approach to Sri Lankan asylum seekers.”

Yes. But nobody seems to know whether the decline in support is because people think the ‘approach’ is too tough or they think it is too soft. Or, did they think that it made Rudd look completely idiotic, which it did.

As for whether we are a true democracy and the best place in the world to live, that depends on your definition of democracy.
While we, and other Western countries appear to be democratic according to the basic definition of the word, it is clear that, once politicians are elected to power, they can pretty much do as they wish, and they only ‘reform’ or offer reasons to vote for them again at the end of their terms. We can complain as much as we like about their actions, but they don’t take a lot of notice.

Is that democratic?

They claim mandates, but they cannot possibly have a mandate for everything they wish to do simply by being voted in as preferable to another party.

Currently, we have an Opposition Leader crapping himself because of the threat of a double dissolution and, therefore, pussy-footing around with amendments to an ETS scheme that many Australians, and many in his parliamentary party, do not want.

Malcolm Turnbull is clearly thinking more of himself and his party than he is of Australia and Australians, instead of risking a double dissolution that would clear up the problem decisively.

Is that democratic?

Of course it’s not democratic. We are promised the world by shysters who want to ‘serve’ us, but once they get in, they don’t give a damn about what we think

Leigh,

All of your points are valid.

However, I do think democracy works best, but only if enough pressure emerges from the public on many important issues to force policy elites to do something. Now this is indeed a struggle as our self-interest can complicate progress. For instance, we all know more needs to be done on the environment, but few of us walk the walk preferrign to talk the talk.

I agree with you. The policies of the major political parties on key issues at present are a bit of a joke.

But the public can force government to do more on the environment and so on. In regard to addressing greenhouse gas emmissions, public opinion will help shape the agenda. I believe that most Australians want something done and it will be the Coalition that will be seen as a dinasour in regard to its reluctance to do anything. Let it dig its own grave. I have faith that the majority of Aust's are sensible.
Though early in the day, a NINE MSN poll today shows that almost 2-1 think humans are responsible for global warming.

Once some change occurs, further pressure may emerge in the future to push greater measures if warranted

"That is why Australians must offer their various arguments in a liberal democracy to ensure that policy elites think that much harder about policy complexity"

Problem is the government of the day are under absolutely no compulsion to comply- especially if they might personally benefit from doing something unpopular.

It is indeed a very good thing we can speak our minds in this country- the problem is our specific brand of democracy means we're usually speaking to deaf ears.

There's still a lot that can be improved upon our (Australian/Westminster) version of democracy indeed to get some more practical results. Including the way we vote.

You have highlighted the problem with our system of democracy. We may well reach a compromise. The problem is that if the science is correct a compromise is worse than useless. There is no indication that a democratic system based on immediate public and political pressures can respond to a long term, system problem requiring long term and structural solutions. In fact, the evidence points quite clearly to our complete inability to deal with climate change. If democracy is about finding middle grounds, compromise, splitting the baby - it can work fine. Unfortunately, climate change isn't that kind of baby.

next

better balance towards the environment is not expressed by any political system that I know of. All political systems and societies express preference for lifestyle and employment, even more basic societies although they have had less impact because of lack of technology.

Humanity now complicated by many more people and scarcer natural resources (water and forests).

I still think that democracies will find best solutions.

Next- basically, in a democratic society (a real one where the public has real input)- if the majority feel inclined to act to the benefit of the environment (and it seems most do indeed), then the society WILL act to the benefit of the environment.
In any other society, it comes down to if the leader and the people the leader feels inclined to obey want to help the environment, then they will.

It's as Chris Lewis said- it boils down to the willingness of the decision-makers.

Unfortunately, we keep turning to the possibilities of democracy, not the realities. Most democratic systems are predicated on a kind of mediocrity. Democracy allows ignorance, skepticism, stupidity, idiosyncrosy - all the wonderful weirdness of human experience...That means the decisions taken, the people elected will reflect a kind of lowest common denominator (how do I act for or represent the most people - thus ensuring my own political survival). Long term decision making outside the realm of immediate self interest is a rare beast indeed in the political/democratic world. I keep hearing people say it is the best of a bad lot (to mangle Churchill and others) - but why do we accept that position? It is clear that the environment isn't protected under democratic systems - and if that is so, we need to look both a changing the system and looking at new systems too.

Next I believe you are overlooking a LOT of considerations;

Firstly, we don't exactly live in a real "democracy"- the extent of public input is solely that a few dozen people are appointed by pseudo-majorities (ie the largest minority of supporters) in separate regional ballots; Beyond this, they do whatever THEY feel like- or what's in the interest of lobbyists.
That's not democracy- democracy is where the public actually gets a say in these issues- and so far, only a sparse handful of referendums on environmental issues have ever been put forward (most of which ended up favoring the most environmentally-friendly option).

Yet more (actually) democratic countries like Sweden and Near-Direct-Democracy Switzerland consistently find themselves at the VERY top of every list of active and effective environmental management and practices- Sweden to the point where all infrastructure is being converted to fully accommodate eco-friendly practices (including construction of public-access recharge ports for electric cars).

King Hazza

I agree with you, we (the people) must force elites to do more on the environment (like Sweden).

We have that opportunity: all Australians are able to vote for the greens or whoever.

My hope is with the people to overcome their self-interest to realise they will benefit from greater environmental measures.

When I defend liberal democracy in the article, I am certainly not suggesting that all is okay on issues such as the environment. Personally, I feel we have to do much more

Next,

Are you suggesting that what we need are less democratic systems ? Like you and me, democracies exist in the real world, with real people, with all their compromises and flaws and defects and special interests. Would that it were a perfect world, but it does appear that 'perfect worlds', utopias, always degenerate into dictatorships, usually fascist dictatorships by whatever name. Not only is nothing perfect in the real world but we never reach a point of completeness either, of a finished project (cf. Karl Popper), certainly not in an inescapably political world, and although we have to run with something, we can never be sure that it is the best or final path: reality is also the Great Tester of ideas, it's what ideas and models and paradigms must always come to terms with, not the other way around.

Uncertainty, incompleteness and revision have probably been the rule forever, but we have been forced to contemplate it only for a couple of hundred years, since Kant, in the context of having to do SOMETHING. I suppose you could call this the post-postmodern approach :)

Joe Lane