Dear Banjo,

You wrote: "All this pleads in favour of our active participation in the important political decisions that affect our lives and the lives of our families, friends and fellow Australians. Voting by direct democracy on issues we consider to be important is technically and economically possible."

Who would decide what issues would be subject to direct democracy? In Norway political advertising is not allowed at a period before election, and there must be direct debate between candidates. Something analogous could be done for spokespeople on issues. How would they be selected?

.

Dear Individual,

.

You wrote :

« (the so-called “experts”) could only succeed in obtaining the adhesion of a majority of the population to their theses by putting forward irrefutable scientific arguments, the validity of which their peers are obliged to acknowledge.

« Banjo Paterson,

« That is assuming that the 'theses' are more than theses & are in fact fact !

« These theses invariably turn out to be just theses hence the incessant strafing of common sense with the only weapon they have, Indoctrination, preceded by poor education/teaching ! »
.

As I indicated in the post to which you refer, Individual :

« There are always a certain number of individuals who are easily influenced and ready to believe anything – but in a country of free speech like Australia there are other voices, just as equally qualified, which can also make themselves heard »

That would make it extremely difficult for any “experts” to, as you say, “dictate to the majority” by “incessant strafing” and “indoctrination”.

Their theses would be immediately challenged and invalidated by their peers as well as the relevant medical professional organisations and government authorities – as was the case recently with the French microbiologist, Prof. Raoult, who gained worldwide renown during the COVID-19 pandemic for promoting hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the disease.

As you may know, Donald Trump announced that he had taken the drug and was convinced it protected him. Brazil’s president, Bolsonaro, made a similar announcement, and later contracted COVID-19.

Independent clinical trials, including a Recovery Trial carried out in the UK on 5 June 2020, determined that there was no clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in people hospitalized with COVID-19. Patients treated with hydroxychloroquine saw a 25.7% 28-day mortality compared to a 23.5% 28-day mortality in those treated with standard care. The trial also showed that hydroxychloroquine was correlated with longer hospital stays and progression to invasive ventilation, but not with cardiac arrhythmia.

Sure, there are rogue experts, Individual, just as there are rogues in every walk of life, but all experts are not rogues.

.

.

Dear David f.,

.

You ask :

« Who would decide what issues would be subject to direct democracy? »
.

I’ve put that question on hold in the back of my head, David.

The type of issues that immediately come to mind are all and any highly controversial issues, of course, important societal matters as well as any others that affect the lives, security and well-being of our citizens, the structure and workings of our institutions, including the establishment of a new constitution to replace our old colonial constitution and the question as to whether we wish to maintain our current statute as a Constitutional Monarchy or establish Australia as a Republic, etc.

Obviously, we couldn’t expect people to vote more than three or four times a year on important issues that require detailed examination and could prove to be quite complex and time absorbing.

From a political point of view, I imagine some sort of commission composed of parliamentary representatives of the major political parties would have to be set up to formulate proposed new legislation to be submitted to the vote by direct democracy.

Those are my few initial thoughts on the question, but I would welcome your input, David, if you have any suggestions to make.

In fact, I would welcome suggestions from all and sundry here on this OLO forum. Anybody reading this, please feel free to respond

.

Dear Banjo,

One issue I think is of great importance is that of sending Australian troops into combat. As it is now the prime minister can do that on his own with not even a parliamentary discussion.

Unless Australia is attacked, there is a domestic insurrection or a treaty obligation I don't think troops should be sent into combat without a vote of the Australian public.

At the moment arms transfers are approved by the Department of Defense (euphemism for military) and are commercial-in-confidence (That means these approvals can be hidden from the public.) I think such arms transfers must be approved by a vote unless Australia is at war.

.

Dear David f.,

.

Many thanks for your suggestions, David. They certainly make sense to me and are worth serious consideration and investigation of best practise in all other developed countries throughout the world.

.

.

To all and sundry,

.

David Hetherington of the think tank, Per Capita, just published an interesting article entitled “Democracy is an endangered species”. Here is an excerpt (my selection) :
.

« Democracy is an endangered species. What was recently the world’s dominant political model risks becoming a curio by mid-century. Authoritarian rule, with populist and nationalist flavours, will likely define our children’s futures.

If that sounds like hyperbole, take a quick survey. Sure, China and Russia have only ever paid lip service to democratic rights, but Presidents Xi and Putin have both effectively designated themselves leaders for life, removing any pretence of popular sovereignty. More worryingly, countries that embraced democracy not twenty years ago are now ruled by authoritarian strongmen: Brazil, Turkey, the Philippines, Hungary, and to a lesser extent, India and Poland. These are not tin-pot dictatorships, but significant regional powers.

Most frightening is what has happened to the United States and Britain. After victory in WWII, these two nations entrenched democracy across the West and when Soviet communism fell in 1989, they worked to extend it worldwide. As recently as 2003, the US invaded Iraq on the pretence of embedding democracy.

That lip service has long gone. The US is no longer interested in advancing democracy but Making America Great Again. Its democratic institutions are faltering. President Trump uses the military to clear protesters for a photo-op. Joe Biden seriously countenances using the military to remove Trump from the White House, should Biden win the election. All this, to say nothing of the attacks on media and the courts, nepotism and strategic voter exclusion that are now daily fare in the White House.

Britain is experiencing similar dynamics. Boris Johnson asserts in the face of all evidence that the UK’s coronavirus response is “world beating”. The Dominic Cummings episode highlights how political figures are above the rules they set for everyone else. Brexit was secured on the indisputable lie that the NHS would save £350 million a week.

.

(Continued …)

.