But don't we have "democracy by media" already?

Just turn on that little cathode ray tube in the lounge room, jot down the relevant poll line number, call the station, (& subsidise the media barons while you're at it) - hey presto - democratic principles in action!

No need for overpaid judges, unweildy legal processes and the usury levied by 'Jills & Jacks' in Beemers anymore.

Those insipid little TV folk will make redundant all those subtle niceties of the democratic process.

Tune in and turn off your brains. May your god help us all!

Ludwig: I think it's a matter of what one's objectives are from a political system. Direct and representative democracy both have their advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other, so I don't know that it's necessarily possible to ask which is better without setting the limitations of one's objectives and judging them accordingly.

What exactly do you mean by the modern era, for instance, and what exactly would a political system need to accomplish in order to be relevant to the modern era? Arguably, Singapore and the Netherlands are both particularly modern, and yet they're both quite different from each other and from Australia. Bear in mind that some things we consider progressive (eg. free choice and environmentalism) may actually be at odds with one another. I think history has shown us that autocracy, or at least oligarchy, is the norm (to which we will return) and democracy is actually the anomaly.

For human nature to change, we'd need a return to survival pressures to cause natural selection. Even environmental collapse or pandemics that wiped out 99% of the population would still leave 1% (who could cope quite well with the available resources), yet we're talking millions. Also, it's unlikely that they'd regress beyond the iron age and agriculture. Humans have remained more or less the same in the past 10,000 years of civilisation, let alone the 200,000 years (I think?) since homo sapiens has been around.

I think we'd be more likely to see radical genetic changes due to mutation from nuclear radiation, or changes through genetic engineering. I think these two are more likely than widescale collapse leading to a fundamental change in the nature of the species.

Whilst I don't think unsustainability is good, ultimately, we'd reach an equilibrium even if there were collapse. I just don't think we're that significant in the scheme of things. It would take an extinction level event to really knock us around enough.

One of Haradine's major premises would appear to have been that the electrorate would be "well-informed and well-educated"

I don't see that technology has resulted in either of those being true. People may be receiving more information, but they are also receiving more disinformation. People are certainly not being educated so as to provide them with the intellectual tools to form valid judgments. Most people would not be capable even of voting in line with their self interest, because they have no way of determining where that interest lies.

I believe that much current dissatisfaction with government derives exactly from the fact that rational government decisions are not perceived as such by the electorate due to poor understanding. Giving the electorate real power in such a situation would only lead to a worsening of our condition.

Sylvia.

Aldous Huxley said:

"A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy."

For my ten cents worth, Australia ceased to be democratic many years ago with the introduction of "two party abused system" of voting.

RIP & Vale Don Chipp, at least someone in our political desert had the intestinal fortitude to try and keep the bastards honest.
The wasteland of Australia's opposition parties (if this is what they really are) is a void which needs filling.

Human rights in dear old Oz - what a joke! Trial by media, trial by political expedient, and justice for all... spare me please.

I sat last night at the public meeting re: Karama/Malak - 'The Bronx Revisited' listening to the Federal Minister for Justice, our NT Police Minister, Big Dave Tollner, and other assorted talking heads waffle on about 'security', our 'responsibilities' and 'civic duties'. An ABC journo with bad breath was there, trawling the crowd, drumming up for 'beat ups on a story'.

What issued forth from them was nothing short of tired rhetoric, re-hashed from time immemorial. Sure, a nice placebo effect from the on offer pills of beefing up police numbers, and other worthy programmes. But, the upshot is, that ever gnawing threat of 4 year terms in office and political myopia stalking anything of substance from ever really happening.

The most wonderful moment, a young African fellow by the name of Edward...marvellous! He spoke passionately about his arrival here, his experiences thus far in Oz, and what in fact our 'responsibilities' were to each other, as citizens.

Problem is, that until were free ourselves from being 'Subjects of the Crown' , and the status quo - citizenry is a moot discussion. Democracy, nothing but a shadowy phantom....?

Sylvia: It sounds like an argument for fascism. Just who out there in society is really capable of making informed decisions, especially since half the time we're lied to and given misinformation? Once we start saying people aren't capable of making the right decisions anyway, it's pretty easy to then justify the bureaucrats and politicians just doing whatever they want and completely ignoring the populace. Of course, societies (past or present) run on such principles work so well...

Besides, if we believe them, a whole bunch of politicians don't even know what's going on in their departments regarding everything from deporting Australians to the AWB scandal, so why should they get to make any decisions either?

Here's an idea: when a politician can accurately predict the future and make rational decisions himself or herself and actually does what he or she promises instead of being a law unto himself or herself, then I might just consider giving him or her my undivided power. Of course, we know neither is going to happen. There's a reason no civilised country has absolute rule: history has shown it doesn't work and the concept of the enlightened despot is false.

Shorbe,

Nice attempt at a strawman.

It's only an argument in support of our existing form of representative democracy. People might be attracted to the idea of a direct democracy, but that does not in itself mean that such a democracy would function.

I'm not particularly happy with the way government currently works, but it's clear that things could be a lot worse.

Sylvia.