(Right Click here to download Audio - MP3)
People often say to me, “Shane, you’re always banging on about how bad our democracy is. Why do you believe that and what is your solution or alternative?” Fair cop. Good questions and ones that take up lots of thinking time. I’ll try my best to explain where I’m coming from. Let’s start with the basics. What does the term “representative, parliamentary democracy” mean within the everyday talk we engage in?
While there are probably good technical definitions, the reality is that once every four years we trundle off to a cardboard box, put some numbers on a sheet of paper or two and voila! a new parliament is formed. This box ticking ritual is performed at the end of a process whereby a few financially well-supported candidates have gone around telling all and sundry that a vote for them is a “vote for good government”; “a return to basic values”; “a demonstration of your support for good government” etcetera etcetera etcetera.
These candidates are drawn from our own communities (in the case of the reps) and our own states (in the case of the senate). They are meant to be “just like us”. That is, they are supposed to share our aspirations, hopes and dreams. After all, they live somewhere near us, don’t they?
After the voting is done and the counting finalised, the new local rep goes off to the big house either in Canberra or in the capital. If they’re a state based independent they might have one or two part time office staffers at the home electoral office and maybe one or two full time staffers in their parliament house office depending on how many votes they got. Federally, an independent doesn’t do much better. If they happen to be a Green or Democrat, their staff numbers are slightly higher but not much. If they’re Liberal, Labor or National, they are allocated staff by the party and if they’re in government you can double the number of staff they’re allocated.
The process thus far is, candidates tell us how much like us they are, promise to do their best to lobby in our interests and then, if lucky, be elected. They go off to the big house and get “inducted” into the rituals and practices of that place. That is, they become institutionalised. If they’re a party hack, that process started long before they reached even the local nomination stage. Therefore, the question arises, “do they represent us?” A generous answer is maybe. The majority answer is never. The minority response is always.
On one level, the electoral process is fine. On another, it is genuinely skewed towards the incumbent and the well healed. The costs and required resources of mounting a campaign are beyond the average person. How many people could take two months off work to try and get another job that, if they were lucky this time, they may loose in three or four years? Not many I would offer even though, speaking generally, there are many good people who would do much better than the current crop.
The first problem we need to overcome, therefore, is the system we call “representative, parliamentary democracy”. If this were a good and transparent system in which the will of the people was expressed and acted on, then there would be less need for the parliamentarians to lie, cheat and steal from us as is happening every day at present. If the system were meant to be truly representative of the people, surely the debates would be solution oriented rather than focusing on name calling and one-up-manship? Surely if those who populate the halls of power were concerned about us, they would not put down the huge demonstrations held to show public opposition to their laws as being nothing more than unrepresentative swill? Surely if those who sit in as the tax payers proxy were more concerned about delivering real, material outcomes than talking up the dubious and very narrow economic “benefits” they would actually name those to whom the real benefits accrue? Surely, if our “representative parliamentary democracy” was actually doing what the lofty words sound like they mean, we would not have to put up with the constant barrage of government propaganda that is more and more focused on party political back slapping and grandstanding than actual public service information. Surely, if the electoral system were operating in our interests we, the people, would have the right to call a poll when our dissatisfaction levels boil over.
These are just a few of the things wrong with the system we have at present. So if this system is not working for us, what could it be replaced with? Well, an anarchic system is one model. That is, we do away entirely with centralised, state and federal governments. Responsibility is devolved to local groups that could operate from the street level to decide what services and infrastructure they need. Each autonomous collective works with others, where needed, to develop larger scale projects that serve the collective’s interests rather than the select beneficiaries of state funded largess as is currently the practice. A socialist model is another. In practice it is similar to the one noted above but has more formal governmental structures.
The central issue to be acknowledged and overcome is the fact that at present the system we live under has been created and modified to serve a very small minority of people both economically and politically – after all another name for our system is “capitalist democracy”. So, whichever way you cut it, the system is not designed to be either representative of or responsive to the people. The ideal is fine. The practice is flawed. But so to are my alternatives. Why? Because all politics is about people.
In our hearts of hearts we know, as a collective, that the system we have is not working. We know, collectively, about the lies, the rip offs, the cheating and manipulation. These are all moral and ethical issues that the system we have cannot resolve nor could any other system. What is needed in Australia is for a revolution of the heart and soul. For the body politic to take back what is rightfully ours from those who have stolen it. However, this takes courage, time and effort, something many people lack. Not that we are not courageous but the daily grind of surviving keeps us well occupied.
“Representative, parliamentary democracy” is a sham and we all know it. So why do we put up with it? One reason is the huge ongoing propaganda campaign that keeps many convinced that there is no alternative. Every thing else is evil, is the central message of this campaign. Moreover, we are, individually and collectively, unfortunately afraid of change.
We live in a climate of fear and any push for change only engenders more fear and withdrawal. For those of us who try and get people to think about the potential for change the challenge, in part, is not the message but the mode of delivery. No one likes to be preached to and no one likes to think their ideas and beliefs are being belittled. So, the challenge is, how do I work with others to try to demonstrate that a new way is possible and that the potential we all yearn for is not unobtainable.
To not work for a better future is to sell out our children’s inheritance and our legacy. A better future is possible and the alternatives worth a try but a question remains. Are we, individually and collectively willing to fight for the right to create, sustain and maintain an alternative to the corrupt and broken system we call “Representative, parliamentary democracy”?