Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, was overheard suggesting that we could use a more "guided democracy" during a conversation with Nauru's president. It seems he was referring to a "disruptive" media.
Sounds a bit ominous. Does anyone have an opinion as to how a guided democracy might differ from an open one?

The term 'guided democracy' was one used by Dr Soekarno, the first president of Indonesia following the collapse of Dutch colonial rule in the then Dutch East Indies in early 1942, to describe the polity of Indonesia. It was a term all in vogue during the 1950s and 1960s.



We have one here in Australia already, I think, Poirot.




The OLO Article 'Election fiction reveals political reality', currently the top article on the 'Today's most popular' display, viewable frozen in time here: http://twitpic.com/2cl8eo , contains a perhaps unwitting, but nevertheless accurate, description of the features of politics in a guided democracy. It is also the second-most-discussed Article. Worth a look if you are prepared to look beneath the labels used by both author and many posters.

OLO viewers can reach this display at any time on this page, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/ . You have to scroll down below the ads beneath the list of most recently posted articles to the Forum to find the display.

I wonder whether Tony Abbott used the term knowingly, or in ignorance?

My current General Discussion topic 'Stop the poll and surprise the parties', http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3840&page=0 , I like to think is about derailing 'guided democracy' in Australia, now that you (and Tony Abbott) have brought the term back to mind. I thank the both of you.

As to what entity may be guiding Australia's democracy remains a little unclear to me, but I suspect an American connection, via Switzerland, may be in some way instrumental in such guidance.

Of course, I know who could (and may well be duty bound to) guide Australian democracy in, by contrast, a very proper way. That person is the Governor-General.



Thank you for your vigilance, Poirot.

Poirot, I'm not familiar with the term; 'guided democracy', but my immediate inclination is that we could indeed do with a more guided democracy in Australia.

The person charged with achieving this should be the Governor General. I've commented on this on Forrest's thread (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3840#94643 and my other posts there)

The basic premise is that the GG should keep the major parties on-track about policies that really matter, during election campaigns and in government, make sure that they give us a reasonable degree of detail rather than gross generalities, that promises or assertions are honoured and that enormously important policy areas such as population policy and sustainability are not ignored or glossed over!

I guess this has got little to do with Abbott's idea of a guided democracy with respect to Nauru. But they are my thoughts on the subject regardless.

Cheers

Aah! Abbott can talk all he likes –but he’s a babe in the woods when it comes to guided democracy.

Here’s the recipe:
You make a policy in closed Cabinet, but you don’t announce it , lest you lose votes.
Then after the election has safely passed, you hand pick a committee, and drip feed them your decision.
After a respectable time has elapsed – you tell them they’ve reached consensus and call a media event.
You then announce what THEY'VE decided --dumfounded by their five minutes of fame, all the patsies can do is nod assent & smile sheepishly.

And here’s the leek:
“JULIA GILLARD: …We would use a selection that got a representative group, and Kerry, then you and others would report the working of the citizens' assembly. That would help inform community debate. It’s not gonna be deliberative…

JULIA GILLARD: Well - and they would, though, at least say this: that it's important to work through an end point - to an end point where people have the discussion, have the debate and we get a consensus about a carbon pollution reduction scheme. I will lead that debate ...

KERRY O'BRIEN: You're assuming that the consensus will come…
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2972557.htm

Well, Kerry, I'm not going to talk about Cabinet conversations,
Well, Kerry, I'm not going to talk about my relationship with Kevin,
Well, Kerry, I'm not going to talk about that …
Well, Kerry, I'm not going to talk about that …
Well, Kerry, I'm not going to talk about that…
(whoops! sorry got caught in a loop there.)

Ludwig, we'd want to change the criteria we use to select our Governor General, if we wanted them to do any thing useful.

About the only use I can see for the present one is that she can get some pastel coloured suits out for an airing, with out hanging them on a cloths line.

Forrest Gump:

>>> I wonder whether Tony Abbott used the term knowingly, or in ignorance? <<<

And that is the kazillion dollar question, because Abbott is capable of either. Which is why he scares me more than Gillard.

As for the question, I had never heard of the term "guided democracy" before, sounds like an oxymoron to me. And I have this sneaking suspicion we are already in one - guided that is, irrespective of whether Labor or Liberals "guide" us.

Severin “As for the question, I had never heard of the term "guided democracy" before, sounds like an oxymoron to me.”

Yes I agree

To Tony Abotts use of it… sounds dubious and probably misheard in the first place

I personally find the outcomes of the “chaos” of a “democracy”, lead by a government with limited authority

are infinitely superior to the outcomes of an all powerful, guided government, capable of covering up the differences of its own perception of omnipotence with the reality of impotence.

As one French commentator said, a couple of hundred years ago

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality.
But notice the difference:
while democracy seeks equality in liberty,
socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”

Sounds like a rigged pseudo-democracy to me.

If people wanted to keep governments on track, I would instead suggest unlimited, binding Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR), and demand a constitutional change that renders certain areas of governance and law-changing out-of-bounds without passing through a referendum.

An ELECTED President, whose power is to put any intervention s/he would make politically, INTO a referendum would also work.

Everything else would fail

Fraccy... Malaysia is a 'guided democracy'.

Over there it usually means "buy" the key opposition members, and bribe them to join the Government. Offer them reasonably juicy political morsels and castrate the opposition by bleeding them of talented staff.

In short guided democracy means "Everyone has their price"

King Hazza, in his post of Sunday, 8 August 2010 at 2:21:41 PM, says:

"Sounds like a rigged pseudo-democracy to me."

As such, that would make it a crime scene, would it not? One of the things you don't do at a crime scene is to run about trampling on what may be evidence, or moving things around from where they were originally able to be found. That, figuratively, is what any proposal to change our existing system around amounts to. A far wiser course, I suggest, is to search for remedies in our existing Constitution, to seek to use its untapped potential to overthrow what some strongly suspect is this 'guided democracy' that in all probability has been foist upon us for many years.

That is exactly what I am striving to do on the 'Stop the poll and surprise the parties' thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3840&page=0

Unfortunately, exposing the precise nature of the rigged pseudo-democracy involves the presentation of a lot of what, to many people, is boring detail of no immediately detectable relevance to that goal. In the detail is, however, where the devil lives.

In Australia, because of its historic stability and relatively even division in political opinion, should any entity ever get to dispose of what may be unduly politely described as a significant parcel of 'proxy votes', it would be very easy to dictate overall electoral outcomes completely the reverse of what all the genuine voters had in unrecognised reality decided. The more marginal electoral Divisions become, the smaller the parcel of 'proxy votes' need be to reverse any given outcome.

A system for centralizing and manipulating electoral enrolments would be a logical component of the mechanism of a 'guided democracy'. If you combine with such a centralized enrolment management system a trigger for redistribution of electoral boundaries that depends on reported ENROLMENTS, rather than population, then you have an immense capacity for maximising the effectiveness of your 'proxies'.

My reference to an 'American via Switzerland' connection was in relation to the inception of what I think could be just such a system. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3810#93520

Poirot asks in her opening post as to whether anyone has an opinion as to how a guided democracy might differ from an open one.

In my opinion, in a 'guided democracy' you would see things like the extradition, under the Howard government, of Hew Griffiths, a permanently resident in Australia British subject, to the US to face a US court on charges upon which he could, and should, have been tried in Australia, in which place he was residing when allegedly he committed the offences, go totally uncommented upon by the then opposition and now Rudd/Gillard government.

You would see things like the Lisa Maree Boersma case cause hardly a ripple of concern. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3810#93419

You would see things like the arrest and detention in custody for 247 days WITHOUT CHARGE on the basis of an extradition request by the US of someone like Brian Howes for allegedly doing something that is not even an offence in the country where they reside, go unchallenged by an Australian government having a potential interest in the alleged 'case'.

You would see champions of the electoral rights of up to 100,000 slow-to-enroll Australian youth, like GetUp, completely overlook the unconstitutional disfranchisement of up to perhaps a million permanently resident in Australia British subjects when they belatedly took a case to the High Court after an election had been called, when they well knew there was a claimed shortfall from full enrolment of 1.3 million names.

One could go on, but that should do for now.

It seems to me our "guided democracy" gains pace with the increasing sophistication of the news media. Investigative journalism is a thing of the past or an occasional novelty. News stories are more and more PR generated "products", themselves predicated on the manipulation of staple human insecurities. The boat-people issue is the prime example; it's absolutely a non-issue in this island continent but how can any political party resist cultivating (in order to harness) such polarising political energy.
"Guided democracy" is synonymous with "popular democracy", entailing a formulaic policy agenda for both sides, tapped into perennial foibles and insecurities: Australian values; protecting borders, brave diggers, tough on crime, blah blah blah. This "commodity fetishism" is titillated in the lead-up to every election and the major parties are in a vulgarity contest that keeps them inseparable.
But rather than the media inciting it all, it's as much taken in by strategic media releases as the rest of the population. It doesn't even matter that many of us can see through this (transparent) process, as the voting majority cannot. They buy all the crap fed to them and vote accordingly--that's why we have to transition to an "inclusive democracy".

Very good links and points Gump; although I would say regrettably, constitutional issues don't really seem to phase this government;

The only practical solution would be simply to convince enough people to ditch the majors for a government more democratically-inclined. There is simply no other means available

Agree with points raised by Gump and Squeers. What more is there to add? I recall enduring the Howard years as being the closest to a dictatorship Australia has had; SIEVX, children over board, workchoices, detaining of Dr Mohamed Haneef, Cornelia Rau, taxpayers funding of private schools and many more actions taken without referendum - is this what is meant by Abbott's "guided democracy"?

Control and restraint by those who believe they are born to rule.