Dear Banjo,

1.
It is often somehow forgotten that democratic elections are not for electing the executive branch of government, but for electing representatives for the legislative branch, the operation of which has far more significant and potentially devastating repercussions to individuals.

Some countries have or tried to have separate elections for the executive, so that is an option alright, but it does not come in place of everyone having a true representative in the legislative branch to try and save them there and mitigate the effects of legislation, including both direct criminal legislation and indirect legislation that is effectively criminal by allowing the executive branch to control one's life under threat of criminal punishment to those who do not obey their regulations.

Should there be separate elections for the executive, then for that purpose political parties and less-than-democratic electoral systems like Australia's may make sense, but not when it comes to legislation which is by far more important.

For electing the legislative, PR is the minimum, although there are ways to improve representation even further.

2.
We know that is not happening, but in theory, the executive ought to be our servants: not leading but following their duties.

3.
Ruling over others is still violence, by whatever name you call it.
Most Australians were born here and have not agreed to adhere to anything just by taking birth.

4.
I presume that even in ancient Greece there were hackers who interfered to a degree with the clay shards that were used for voting. That doesn't mean we should throw the baby with the dirty bath-water.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2943195835887549&set=a.109112135962614
I suppose this Democracy is deemed racist by our resident hangers-on ?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Yes, of course, the executive branch is not elected, per se, though most, if not all, its members are usually elected in their respective constituencies.

That said, electors are well aware of the fact that the leaders of the main political parties are vying for the top post of prime minister in our federal elections. We all knew that either Peter Dutton or Tony Albanese would be prime minister at the last election even though we were not asked to vote to decide who should become prime minister.

My vote at that election was simply to prevent Peter Dutton from becoming prime minister. It had no other purpose.

As a matter of fact, I suspect that many of our compatriots do likewise. They tend to vote against politicians they don’t want, rather than vote for politicians they consider capable of doing a better job.

As to why I refer to the members of the executive as “political leaders”, I guess it’s because they have been chosen because of their superior aptitude, knowledge, experience, etc. compared to others.

Also, from my personal experience I have observed that some people are natural leaders. It’s a sort of gift of nature. They are capable of rising to the occasion in extremely difficult circumstances and inspire confidence to others who recognize their superiority.

In a certain sense I see the pilot of a commercial aeroplane as a leader too. The pilot is, as you say, at the service of the passengers, but the passengers are incapable of flying the plane to their destination. They place their trust in the pilot to take them there safely.

The same goes for the captain of an ocean liner with thousands of passengers on bord. None of them could navigate the ship safely to its destination. The captain is at their service of the passengers, and he leads them there.

By the same token, our elected politicians, whether we voted for them or not, are at our service and we entrust them with the all-important task of leading our nation.

.

Dear Banjo,

For me, casting my vote for or against some executive candidate or a party is a luxury I cannot afford - since I only have one vote, which I rather use to try save my skin from nightmarish laws and policies that political parties propose.

It would be best if we could vote on the actual laws proposed, whether directly or through true representation, rather than for some party that promises to save us from 55% of them, then may or may not keep their promises. True it was not technically feasible for a couple of millennia, but now modern technology allows for it again.

Those "leaders" could perhaps be leading their like-minded political parties, but not myself and I do hope nor intelligent people like yourself. For me they are just oppressors who rule by might and threats. Unlike the "passengers" you mentioned, I never asked them to take me along to any destination, by air or by ship. If I ever "follow" their laws, then that is only out of fear.

and we entrust them with the all-important task of leading our nation.
Banjo Paterson,
yet no-one helps them let alone corrects them ! Parasitism is the most heinous mentality for leaders to deal with.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Those "leaders" could perhaps be leading their like-minded political parties but not myself … For me they are just oppressors who rule by might and threats … I never asked them to take me along to any destination … If I ever "follow" their laws, then that is only out of fear »
.

Perhaps you may not have fully realised the nature and extent of what you agreed to at the time, Yuyutsu, but in order to obtain Australian nationality, you were required to make a certain number of pledges :

• to be loyal to Australia and its people
• to share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties
• to uphold and obey the laws of Australia

Naturally, you were not obliged to make those pledges, but if you had chosen not to make them, you would not have been granted Australian citizenship.

And as I understand you have become an Australian citizen, like the rest of us, you are expected to share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.

Here is the full list of responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship :

http://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/what-does-it-mean

.