Significant changes to a worn-out Australian democracy require some positivity from Peter Dutton
Continued from Is Australian democracy at risk from an authoritarian leader?
One day on a tranquil Sunday, I found myself lost in thought as the rain gently tapped on the rooftop, prompting me with profound questions. The word ‘democracy’ keeps coming back to me, and though I have written about it before, my inner political self urges me to revisit the topic. Our democracy is in dire straits, but I hope it can be saved from its current state of decay. May my passion for this cause not falter.
Before presenting any ideas for rehabilitating a democracy on its knees, one must first acknowledge the difficulty. When Anthony Albanese was elected Prime Minister on May 21 2022, he was expected to clean up the current state of our democracy and the political culture that goes with it.
He discovered that there is only so much one can do about meaningful and significant change without a like-minded opposition leader’s sincere, earnest cooperation. Dutton must find some positivity. It may be foreign to him, but find it he must.
However, Albanese learned it would never be forthcoming from a man like Peter Dutton, whose sole interest is obtaining power. This was decisively confirmed with the recent “Voice” referendum: The moment Opposition leader Peter Dutton (unexpectantly for Albanese) uttered “No.”
That would be the end of it. And so it was for The Voice, but any proposal that warranted change carried the same threat.
If we want to become a nation, independent, holding its place in a world of hard-earned international goodwill, we must become a republic, one with an Australian as our head of state; it can only happen with the help of Peter Dutton.
But Dutton will have differing views rather than agree to any proposal to upgrade our Constitution via a standing committee putting forward recommendations for the public to consider.
It is just ridiculous that a document that doesn’t even mention women is still with little change since January 1, 1901.
In this period of our political history, the only way for vital issues to be updated is to have all political party leaders agree on the substance of any proposal. For any opposition leader to oppose, such a proposal would render it dead in the water.
Unsurprisingly, our two-party political system was born from this very dreary document written by men for men. Our current combatant political two-party system could serve us better but needs more positivity to change it. Members sit on opposite sides in an auditorium where pit bulls are let off the leash for a bit of snarling and hatred.
Nobody wants to improve the system because it suits them not to. Once they are the winner, they have the power.
Democracy should be a “Work in progress”: Never ending
A clear indication of an Australian democracy in decline is the fact that people are giving up this voting gift, literally saying: “A pox on both your houses”.
Tens upon tens of thousands did so at the last election by not voting.
Our political system is in crisis because our solicitations need to speak with clarity on issues that concern people.
To truly serve the needs and aspirations of its people, a genuinely effective democracy must constantly evolve and adapt. We must be bold and persistent in building a more inclusive and just society. We must remain compassionate and sympathetic towards each other and work together towards creating a better future for all. A functional democracy should give its citizens a definite sense of meaningful involvement. It should always be open to improving its methods and implementation. Crucially, its constitutional framework must be regularly revised, renewed, and subject to political compromise whenever the greater reasonable demands it.
But above all, its function should be that:
“… regardless of ideology the common good should be served first and foremost. A common good healthy democracy serves the collective from the ground up rather than a top down democracy that exists to serve secular interests. One that is enforced by an elite of business leaders, politicians and media interests who have the power to enforce their version. That is fundamentally anti-democratic.
Every facet of society, including the democratic process, needs constant and thoughtful renewal and change. Otherwise, we become so trapped in the longevity of sameness that we never see better ways of doing things.”
Unfortunately, Australia’s democratic process, as defined by its Constitution, is struggling to keep up with the changing times. It seems stuck in the past, and moving forward requires significant changes. Labor’s desire for a republic and a modernised constitution is understandable, but it may need help from others. It’s a difficult situation, and understandably, many people feel frustrated.
With his opposition to the Voice, Dutton has shown that nothing can be changed without his agreement.
In my previous article I wrote – and wish to repeat – that:
“I am not a political scientist, historian or a trained journalist. I write this as a disgruntled and concerned citizen who wants change to the Australian Constitution I grew up with. The demise of Australian democracy originates in a monumental shift by both major parties in how they now interpret their individual philosophies.
They are now tainted with sameness.”
The Liberal Party has been replaced by a neo-conservative one, actively supporting rich individual identities against a collective one, and old-style Liberalism no longer has a voice.
Labor, as is usual, has come to power during a crisis and is managing its wimpy grip on power, unable to make the hard decisions it knows it promised less Dutton denies his support yet again. There is little or no difference between the Liberals and the National Party, who seem irrelevant as a political force in doing anything that benefits our democracy.
Conservatives are going down the path of a defined inequality with a born-to-rule mentality that favours the rich.
Continued tomorrow …
My thought for the day
If there is an acceptance by both sides that negativity is the only means of obtaining and retaining power, then we will get nothing more than what we have now.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
13 comments
Login here Register here-
Andrew Smith -
JulianP -
corvusboreus -
GL -
Terence Mills -
wam -
paul walter -
John lord -
Clakka -
wam -
andyfiftysix -
corvusboreus -
leefe
Return to home pageDon’t ignore how selfish ageing and/or low info voters can be, to vote for autocratic or eugenics based policies against their own and/or younger generations’ interests and future; see Brexit, Trump, The Voice etc. and raging at or denigrating anything centrist in favour of instant and narcissistic gratification, too easy….
Thank you John. I share your frustration and disappointment at our present state.
One issue to which you refer, is the Party system of organization and representation.
You make the valiant point that party leaders must agree on the substance of proposals for there to be any chance of reform.
Sadly John, right there is the major impediment: the Party system itself.
As things stand, neither Dutton or the Nats have any intention to support Labor – in fact some Libs regard themselves as being “at war” with Labor. What does that attitude tell you about any likely changes for the better?
One ray of hope lies in the election of additional independent Members and Senators, but that trend, if it is to continue, is something of a long-term possibility of diluting the Party system.
One crucial matter that you identify John is Labor’s “…wimpy grip on power, unable to make the hard decisions it knows it promised less Dutton denies his support yet again.”
Labor is not a minority Government. Why does it act like one?
Like yourself, and no doubt many others, I do not understand why Labor does not simply charge ahead, ignoring Dutton completely, introducing and getting legislation passed in the Reps and then on to the Senate where the real decisions will be made.
JulianP,
Hear! hear!
I especially agree regarding the potential of independents to undermine certain current ‘gentlemen’s club’ arrangements, which often collude to prevent/dilute patently necessary and publicly popular reforms.
Z Steggel MP’s ‘Voter protection in political advertising bill’ (“stop the lies”); https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7101
A call for parliamentary substance testing, and the PM’s response (‘nope, we prefer to self-regulate’) https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/anthony-albanese-rejects-call-for-random-drug-and-alcohol-testing-in-parliament/
Der Spud is like an overflowing dam of positivity. He’s always positive about being negative.
One of the fundamentals of democracy is that each person has freedom of speech, association, movement and freedom of belief.
In most democratic societies these freedoms are embraced in a Bill of Rights but in Australia our politicians have energetically dodged the need for a Bill of Rights and we have had to rely on High Court Judges to interpret our rights from the Constitution.
I’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating that we need a Constitutional convention to update our outdated and severely flawed constitution and build in a Bill of Rights.
If you don’t think that we need to upgrade our constitution I draw your attention to one of many clauses which whilst obsolete still feature in our constitution :
59. Disallowance by the King
The King may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
I rests my case, your Honour [says he tugging what remains of his forelock] !
Wow, lord, a pommie system that has two sides of the coin ie a government and an opposition is in Australia. Australia’s parliament is, arguably, a 3 party system reduced to two by a coalition. The government decisions are hampered by an elite selected group of egoists whom keating suitably called ‘unrepresentative swill’.
Senators are no longer representatives of the states, as purposed in the constitution, and now have, and use, an enormous ability to spoil, frustrate and blackmail, far in excess of the pommie house of lords. Time to give them the arse??? Is compulsory voting, democratic, lord? I think not, let’s give it the arse, eh? Have you any thoughts about dumping voting above the line? It is a copout, let’s dump it.
The social and political difference between labor and lnp is a chasm, as your posts have often shown but the major similarity is surely the need to get enough votes to be elected and that is the prime mover for the bandit and dutton with poor old Albo at the mercy of those boys when he moves to govern.
ps
Cuckoo we need a new constitution no more patches?
To me, the flaws in Ausralia are not going to be remedied by Dutton- probably the opposite.
I think it is late in the day for fixing. The duopoly have continued their century-long assault on the justice system, privacy, increasing dumbing down and the death of social infrastructuring. At bottom, the role of hidden FTA;’ and defence “security” treaties that have eroded national sovereignty and human and community rights and imposed neoliberalism.
I don’t think we are quite at the level of an “invasion” that robbed local people of their rights two hundred years, but am glad I’m getting older and will maybe avoid through natural cause, much of what is to come.
Btw, that IA “family” pic from, I think, Lucy Hamilton.. I wonder if it doesn’t point as to where things may end up in the longer term.
Wam. My piece was more about Dutton’s inability to be positive about change.
Yep, well said John Lord,
Dutton has made his choice.
At this point I cannot help but be drawn to part of my comment on Tess Lawrence’s beautiful article on Alexei Navalny and his wife Yulia Navalnaya … Faith, hope and the greatest of these is love.
We seem to be stuck:
“Being pressed and diverted to satisfy the aspirations of others will mostly lead to anxiety and discord, and it seems for the cowardly bullies it provides an irresistible opportunity for them to take their revenge on existence. Sadly it appears to have become the expedient calculus of those that would seek to dominate.”
You appear to have addressed this to an extent in your comment about ‘top-down’ vs ‘bottom-up’ democracy.
Looking forward to your continuing story.
Wow, lord, sorry I missed your point. With dutton, and any other LNP fossil, being incapable of anything but negative assessments.
They(and the loonies) attempt to make changes any bill, from Albo.
So I thought you were making significant moves towards our democracy to make it better.
I dont think Dutton will ever say anything but No. A good electoral thumping is the only cure.
I disagree that we need a new constitution. Every other constitution also has knuckle draggers killing the system from within.
Can you imagine the shit that we would have to go through to even get there.
We need to filter out narcissists , psychopaths and morons from the two parties.
We dont go to a toilet hire company to get our teeth fixed, yet we run to a fish’n’chip operator to sort out policies.
The elephant in the room is how these people get to positions of power in the first place.
My self-indulgent take on theoretical proposals without any feasible chance of implementation:
I want New Year’s Day to be redeclared as March 1, so that the currently perplexing named months of September through December make definitional sense (rather than being a linguistic travesty of Gregorian pedigree).
Of course, this in itself is a major concession to practicality, on account of my preferred model, namely a complete overhaul replacing the current “30 days have September” ad-hoc setup with a much more naturalistic & logical 13 month lunar-cycle based annual calendar (365 day year divided into 13 moonths’ each of 28 days, plus 1 bonus festival ‘day out of time’) being an even more radically unachievable concept.
Back to reality, I still stand by the viewpoint that more effectively reflective local electoral representation is sometimes achievable through bypassing traditional party constraints and selecting quality individuals of independent candidature who are unconstrained by entrenched party associated baggage.
At the very least, elevating such folk should increase attendant lobbying costs, as influencing interests are forced to renew with some active wooing in order to re-corrupt governmental processes .
But, cb, 13 is the “Devil’s number”, don’t you know?! We can’t have that in a sane, rational modern dating system …
Pretty well everything else I have to say on this topic has already been said by Julian and Terrence (thank you, gentlepeoples). It’s fine for Albo to try to operate with a level of bipartisanship, but when the LNP is locked into NO as its only response, it’s bloody pointless. You’re the government, ALP. Govern, FFS, rather than kowtowing to the opposition.