'The battle for Democracy'

Background

November 1975

The dismissal of the Whitlam 12 government in November 1975 was a startling event to a person who generally ignored politics. I remember exactly where I was standing when the news broke. It was evident that some Coalition senators were not happy about their House of Representatives leader preventing them from voting on the supply bill.

This posed a question. If the Senate had brought the bill forward with a secret ballot, what would have been the result? That question immediately raised another. Why is the secret ballot not standard practice for all voting in our parliaments? It was obvious that members should not be forced to vote in accordance with the dictates of their parties, or other group pressures. Why can they not freely represent their own constituents?

Could there be a better democracy than the one we are used to? It seemed clear that there could, and should be-that what we have is not really democracy at all. Perhaps the serious concern we have about our political process does emanate from a very basic problem in our democracy, which is responsible for the widespread disillusionment and apathy in the community.

Lessons from history

The Greeks

The ancient Greeks called their system democracy because it enabled its citizens to participate directly in decisions in their public meetings. They were quite proud of their system, enjoying the normal opportunity to take part, as individuals, in the settling of the policies and decisions that shaped their lives.

The word democracy is comprised of the two Greek words demos, 'the people' and kratein, 'to rule'. 13 Thus their system enabled them, as a society, to grow in strength, which is a further sense included in the word kratein, signifying a people growing strong through involvement. Pericles, 495-427 BC comments, in Thucydides, Historia, II p. 37: 'We enjoy a constitution that does not follow the customs of our neighbours - we are rather an example to them than they to us. Our government is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of the few but of the many'.

Some have commented, critically, defensively, that their slaves could not vote in Athens. That is beside the point. The importance of the Athenian model to us lies in the fact that the entire franchise had the right of direct input. In 'our' democracy we have no significant, parallel input to political decisions. We are therefore leagues away from the Athenian model. We fail the Athenian test of democracy-miserably.

Abraham Lincoln

Western nations are generally regarded as democracies-but Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as:


Do we have government by the people? No. Do we have the opportunity to enter directly into any of the political decisions with which we must live? No. The whole process greatly inhibits participation, and destroys hope of significant involvement. The odds are against our having any objective part in the political process, let alone exercising a rightful role in self-government.

Elections generally give us no more than a token involvement: to choose between the 'true-blue' candidates that have been pre-selected by the machine men of the major parties. Since there is no facility for interaction between concerned people and their 'representatives', public discussion and debate is virtually confined to the media. Very few of the letters sent to newspapers are printed. It is said that every letter published represents a hundred voters, but that is small comfort to those whose letters fail to be published. In any case what confidence can there be that such letters will sway those in government circles. I am reminded of the comment that publishing a book of poetry is like dropping a pebble down the Grand Canyon and listening for the bang. The average private citizen is equally powerless to have a voice in public affairs.

Talk back program hosts offer a brief opportunity for a fluent few, but tightly control their input-so there is little confidence that the views of the concerned participants receive any attention from government.

Again, petitions to parliament are routinely ignored-merely recorded. What may have been once a genuine provision for public involvement has degenerated into sterility.

With effective connection to the decision-making stream impossible, such opportunities merely offer a sort of 'safety valve'.

Input to the World Wide Web is free to the many with Internet access, and interaction with others is growing fast but, once again, there is no connection to the actual political process and impact on government is virtually nil.

A TV commentator in an international hook-up once referred to our 'full-blown' democracy. But a flower full-blown is about to be replaced.

Concerned individuals face frustration and helplessness. Our democracy is far from well, as parties and pressure groups dominate the political system, and the government routinely overrules any contribution of the opposition in parliament. One New South Wales independent, in good standing in his electorate for many years, disclosed how he suffered acute frustration in the state parliament, failing to ever get anything done about his constituents' concerns.

The forum that the Athenians enjoyed in their system of real democracy is missing from our system. We have gone backwards, not forwards, since the days of Greek democracy.

Communism

The Communists claimed that their system was the true democracy. One remembers the Russian officer in Afghanistan when facing a German correspondent. He questioned him: 'From the Democratic Republic of Germany?'

Karl Marx invented the term, 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'. It was a reaction to the perceived injustice of the political and industrial climate of his day, when many were suffering at the hands of the 'capitalists', and the 'workers' had no say in government.

What went wrong with Russian 'democracy'? Something certainly did. A 'dictatorship of the proletariat' sounds a bit like democracy-rule by the ordinary people, or workers-but was it? Clearly it was not-the Communist Party grabbed the power.

Revolution is cruel, with sudden, ideological change. Real democracy is change by evolution-measured, considered change-based on the intelligent participation of the governed.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Representation

The size of the populations of modern countries appears at present to prevent any possibility of matching the early Greek example of people involvement, so representative government has tended to be the accepted option. However the monopoly power of large parties prevents us from having representatives who are free to represent us.

It is natural for interest groups to form in society, but the accumulation of political power in parliament by parties and lobbies subjugates the unorganised. It has been said that other people should organise and, if they fail to do so, it is their own fault.

What sort of a nation do we want to be? Political advantage sets bad community precedents, and turns society into a jungle. This is quite foreign to the ideal of democracy, with its principles of equality, and respect for others. While 'the people' represent the true, and ultimate source of political power, modern democracies exemplify the cornering of that power by political leaders.

The 'Era of Democracy'

The 'Era of Democracy'14 describes the state of Victoria in the 1850s. Considerable unrest occurred on the gold fields, where many restless and fiercely independent immigrants, who had dreams of great riches, did not strike much gold. The mining-licence fee was a hefty thirty shillings per month-probably a month's wage-and the fine of five pounds for failure to produce a licence was beyond reason. No doubt the actions of the draconian licence police (many of them ex convicts), in chaining offenders to logs and trees while continuing their hunt, was the 'last straw'.15

At Ballarat, Victoria, hundreds of miners took up arms against the government, raising the blue flag with the white cross, now a familiar sight hanging from cranes on Australian city building sites.

The British military attacked the rebel miners in an action known as the 'Eureka Stockade'. In the early morning of Sunday, 3rd December 1854, some twenty miners died in the easily crushed rebellion.

The incident was followed by a period of considerable political activity. Public meetings abounded, with some numbering as many as ten thousand men. Such was the antagonism toward the Colonial authorities, and so great the clamour for democratic reform, that juries declared all the captured rebels 'not guilty'.

At least half the population of the Colony consisted of immigrants who, being without the qualifying land holding, had no vote. Amongst these must certainly have been the Chartists, a group of political activists in England who had been agitating for some time for improvements to the English political system. Their list of reforms included the requirement that the election of members of parliament be conducted by secret ballot. Other reforms being sought included the abolition of the property qualification for members of parliament, adult (male at that time) suffrage, and short (term) parliaments.

Following hot public debate, the Colonial authority reluctantly agreed to these reforms. Perhaps the most important to be adopted was the secret ballot for the election of members of parliament, against the wishes of the conservative minority in the community, and their government.

It was noted at the time that an employee no longer had to look over his shoulder to see if his employer was watching the way he was voting. The shopkeeper and the tenant, likewise, became free to cast their votes without fear, from customer or landlord.

The secret ballot was actually introduced for elections in 1856 in Victoria and South Australia; in New South Wales and Tasmania in1858; in Queensland in1859; and in Western Australia in 1893.16

We would never tolerate a return to the situation that existed before this change. Yet it is easy for us to take for granted that which was only achieved by much agitation and loss of life.

Those against adoption of the ballot prophesied chaos. Such is the reaction of those with an ingrained hostility toward change, regardless of the need. The record indicates that there was complete calm in the aftermath of the subsequent election, despite the fact that a great many controversial questions were in issue at the time.

It is interesting that in this era of democracy in Victoria, London was suffering the enormous problems of the industrial revolution with the flood of migrants from the country. Serious deficiencies in sewerage disposal flooded the city with an insufferable stench, with the miasma being blamed for the loss of thousands of lives due to cholera. Confusion reigned while the powers that be argued for some years about the best plan for sewerage disposal. The answer is listed amongst the seven wonders of the industrial world.

So, 'It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good', and early Australian democratic reform was perhaps the lucky beneficiary!

International history of the ballot.

At one time decisions of parliament had been made by ballot, but it was ruled out by the Lords in 1710. The practice also operated briefly in France at on stage, but the rise of party interests was the most likely cause for its abandonment. In Britain this was revisited in 1833, (the year after the great Reform Bill, 1832), after many years of Chartist agitation , but was rejected.

In Europe: France (1852) and Italy (1859) adopted the ballot for parliamentary elections, but Britain did not until 1872. The USA followed in 1888 in Massachusetts, and subsequently all states of the Union adopted the so-called 'Australian ballot'.17

On 3rd December 1991, the 137th anniversary of the Eureka rebellion, historian Brian Mckinlay, speaking on Australia's 'Radio National', commented that the results of 'Eureka' (the secret ballot for elections) were to make Victoria 'the leader in the vanguard of the world's modern democracies'.

This is not really surprising. We know very well that the secret ballot has an authority that ends all argument. It is manifestly the fairest way for differences of opinion to be settled when decisions must be made. Imperfect as our electoral system is, it is clear that there is a far more equal say in elections with the ballot than without. The calm acceptance of the result of elections by ballot is a repeated phenomenon, no matter how close the contest. Its fairness guarantees a universal acceptance on the basis of majority rule, although there is uneasiness that rule by a government with a majority of seats is not always endorsed by an overall majority of votes-an unfortunate anomaly that is aggravated by the party system.

The challenge of democracy

Humankind tends to be aggressive. There is nothing wrong with that when it is the kind of aggression that penetrates the barriers of the unknown and the never conceived. Scientists are aggressive in that sense. So are those who aim to break sporting records, and inventors and entrepreneurs in every field. They are true leaders.

Our democracy needs that kind of innovative aggression-the courage to break new ground, to invent a better way for the people to participate in self-government as independent individuals-without partisanship. Strong, non-partisan parliamentary systems are needed to reverse the decline in the world's democracies-and lead rapidly to effective world government, based on democratic principles.

In each country, parliament must be the final melting pot in which all policies can simmer until satisfactory solutions are found to every problem. But it has been short-circuited by the failure of most politicians to do the very thing for which they are elected-to represent their electorate in their own local, and wider, interest. Today we see partisan politicians representing other constituencies, and manipulating the weaknesses of the political system to partisan advantage.

Should we be disturbed? Yes, we should. Fresh dangers are looming, and, we need a realistic forum for the people to regain a self-governing role. The world is a dangerous place-and is worsening. Problems that can seriously affect all our lives are multiplying. Some troubles may be unavoidable. We will probably have to accept some things that we would rather not, but we should have the power to accept them ourselves, not just have them thrust upon us willy-nilly, by unrepresentative government. Without that power we are not a people.

What can we do? Democracy was never easy. Freedom from dominion has always been costly. Think about our origins in the 1850s when the people asserted themselves after the miners died in the struggle against an intolerable regime. 18 Perhaps our condition is too tolerable. The danger is that, like Hitler's Germany, by the time it becomes intolerable, our responses may be entirely atrophied, and effective dissent impossible. The frog sitting in a container of cold water on the fire sets the scene. By the time the water is too hot, the frog is too weak to save itself. Is a real democracy a hopeless dream? In many countries, the people's hopes of justice and peace have collapsed in factional struggles and the fires of civil war. In the West, countries have so many problems (even though minor by comparison), that it becomes hard to spare any useful time or thought, or real money, for the developing world's problems, much less to show them a better way. We haven't found it ourselves, despite the fact that we have the British heritage of parliamentary democracy, enhanced by our own unique contribution, the secret ballot for parliamentary elections.

A real democracy can only be realised if we can become free, as individuals, to effectively pursue community objectives-the betterment of society, the never-ending dream. We need a political structure based on a free, vibrant and unified society-a wellspring of new ideas-confidently cooperating in seeking the best objectives for the whole community.

But there are some who just don't want positive change ignorance, because it suits their ambitions the way things are. There are some who want our democracy to regress-with voluntary voting for example. For the 'hoi polloi' to 'drop off' will suit them fine. A left-wing union activist once even said to me: 'We need leadership, not democracy'. That is where the extremes of both 'left' and 'right' find common ground. They both seek power, and are sworn enemies of true democracy and each other. Their motives are tribal.

Some admit that our democracy is not perfect, but excuse any reluctance for reform, by saying: 'anyway, our system is better than many others'.

Democracy still eludes us. We need leaders to guide us successfully into the complexities of the future, even to set a moral example-but our political system does not promote political accountability or honesty-or a public spirit amongst the people. Our system gives 'leaders' authoritarian powers over parliament, subverting the democracy in which they claim to believe. The status quo is protected from reform by calling it democracy, undermining moves for a better way. There are some who are seeking to tinker with the system at the edges to improve it, but without getting to the root of the problem. The door is still wide open for groups to organise and capture power from the people. Minorities, parties, groups and factions are the effective rulers. We need more than peripheral change.

Can we be satisfied with anything less than a real democracy? Can we be content with the politics of apathy, cynicism, and frustration with politicians? We need a new, a real democracy. Trenchant criticism of our political system is quite common, but solves nothing. Those directly involved have no desire to change it, despite their considerable frustration and, often, bitter tears when they lose office. Should we, or they, just have to be philosophical about the stubborn obstacles that clutter the path to a sane future? Some, comparing our way of life with other countries, think we have arrived. Why then do we have ongoing conflict? We need a better political system that can help us to resolve our problems in a much calmer, more sensible and effective way? If we can't, with all our natural advantages, who can? Or could it be that our comparative wealth is a hindrance to making progress to a better democracy? But our wellbeing is at risk from the conflicts in our parliament, our society, and our economy.

Many countries, especially in the third world, are suffering much worse social problems than ours. A major difficulty for them, as they are torn by factional strife, or suffer from political repression, is the lack of an example of a real democracy that could help them to climb out of their political, social and economic mess. Much better systems are needed. Ideally we should be already seeing a United Nations that is able to authoritatively require all nations to adopt democratic forms of government. That dream is, unfortunately, rapidly receding, basically because national leaders who should know better, are more interested in the rhetoric than in spreading democracy. After all, where is the real exportable democracy to be found?

Democracy has yet to prove itself in the modern environment-to prove itself capable of handling the problems of the present, let alone the future. Our 'democracy' is a hierarchical and autocratic style of government. Democracy must devolve power to the people or fail its own principles. It is no wonder that it has so few adherents in the Third World.

Autocratic systems and more disciplined people are often more successful, while we are in the doldrums. Why? Does it mean that democracy is not up to it-too indecisive perhaps? No, it means that our democracy is hopelessly inefficient at applying its declared principle of a self-governing people. It is in a state of confusion, with no clear reform direction, while continual squabbles preoccupy the power groups holding the system to ransom.

We have allowed our birthright-the birthright of political participation and freedom-to be stolen from us. We have mistaken laissez faire and abdication of responsibility for freedom. Freedom, at any level, is costly. It does not happen by accident. Political freedom is no different.

Our political system is a constant battleground-vastly entertaining for a few, but little help in the fair and stable resolution of long-neglected problems. We certainly need a new democracy, to resolve increasingly difficult problems-a new democracy that can create a new climate of people involvement, cooperation, decisiveness, and openness to innovation. There is a fast-changing world rushing upon us, whether we like it or not. We don't have much time. Current versions of 'democratic' government throughout the world, whether modelled on the Westminster, or the American presidential systems, have clearly demonstrated that they cannot achieve the democratic ideal of fair and just government in a calm and stable political climate. Democratic government, as we know it, benefits powerful groups ahead of the people generally. The resulting restlessness and distrust often lead to strong dissident action, which can sometimes end in violence and be met by severe, repressive measures.

We see constituents ignored between elections, and a pandering to the 'hip-pocket nerve' at elections. The system is wide open to abuse, and those with money and media power override the weak and unorganised with relative ease. Self-interest is at a premium, and the public interest is at a discount, only being mimicked for political advantage. The message is loud and clear, and being heeded by more and more groups-organise, grow strong, and exert pressure until demands are met.

There are difficult problems ahead. The people, especially all those who wish, must be more able to be involved in discussions in common forums. Overruling the people produces a troubled people, sowing a sullen unwillingness to cooperate, manifesting itself in tax evasion, profiteering, poor productivity, absenteeism, excessive wage demands, strikes, pickets, youth unrest, poor education performance, family turmoil, resort to drugs and crime, widespread depression, and suicide-with vandalised public assets, rubbish in our streets, and a diminished pride in our country. These are the symptoms of a grievance against a society which excludes the vast majority from the basic right and satisfaction of a truly free people-that of participating in the decisions which affect us all.

Democracy must grant a greater equality of power than exists at present, regardless of any lack of wealth or organisational clout. Those in power, who claim we are a democracy, should be willing to give realistic attention to political reforms giving promise of devolution of power, to make the political system more accessible and closer to the democratic ideal. Still, some prefer the democracy we have to a real democracy. Self interest and the ready availability of excessive power through money and group organisation quickly demolish democratic principle. A Russian commentator once made the rueful comment that democracy never comes from the 'top'. What's new? Democracy has never been, and never will be produced or improved except by the vision and sacrifice of ordinary people.

Can our democracy guide us through the new challenges of our time? Unless its processes can deal adequately with the increasing problems of the present, and the future, the answer must be an emphatic no.

Sport thrives as a national inspiration but, if it means something to be Australian, why is it that no one expects that spirit to pervade our political life? We should have a democracy to be proud of, as a world leader. We don't.

Global impact

Global forces of finance and business have 'cleared the decks for action', and their 'grapeshot' has already been making havoc in the 'rigging'. Government is now virtually helpless to stall the economic invasion-like King Canute trying to stop the tide. Free trade agreement negotiators are demanding the political sacrifice of our safeguards in the areas of quarantine, foreign investment and local entertainment production. It is rapidly becoming very plain that the power to make our own decisions within a protected system is fast becoming an impossible luxury, as gladiatorial combat on the floor of parliament becomes progressively more ludicrous in its stupidity.

So what does the future hold for us? Is there really hope for our democracy to help us face the future, when decisions affecting our land are progressively coming under the control of forces beyond our shores?

A Christian perspective

Democracy is surely the expression of God's will in the area of community life. It rings true with the commandment to: 'Love your neighbour'. Many Christians still support groups and parties-entrenched authorities driven by sectional interest and/or ideological conviction to manipulate the system to their advantage. Are they interested in a real democracy, with people being recognised as all equal in the sight of God? It seems not. When Christ washed the disciples' feet, He showed the divine attitude to personal status and power, very clearly. Christians should support enhanced democratic procedures and be in the forefront of advancing democratic reform. Christians led the fight against slavery, child labour and other abuses in the past. Why not again? Where are we who believe in the equality of all before God? Is God unconcerned with ordinary life?

Where is God? Who is He? I am reminded of the story of Lord Shaftesbury visiting the slums of Britain with a minister of religion. The minister: 'Why doesn't God do something'? To which Shaftesbury tersely replied, 'He is': then promptly went and organised a food supply. 'By their fruits you shall know them.'

We are His representatives if we claim His Name, are we not? True democracy must be our priority-surely.

It is quite incongruous that the three leaders of America, England and Australia are supposedly devout Christians, yet they have ignored the basic teaching of Jesus in their determined march to war: 'Love your enemies', and 'Resist not evil, but overcome evil with good'? What saddens me is that, with the passing of time the thousands of innocents who died also pass from world consciousness.

While the American steamroller rolls on unchecked, the European dissidents: Germany and France, are being progressively denigrated and economically punished for their moral position, while the UN is becoming ever more like the servant of America.

Must we forever accept the doctrine that might is right?

Apathy

Why this great Australian apathy?

Are we too well off to be worried? Are we too self-indulgent to care? Are we completely satisfied with the political life of this country? Do we want a better democracy so that we can all stop grumbling about the government and register an effective protest about things that concern us? Do we want to have some control over our lives, without the confrontation of angry, shouting demonstrations? Is there any other way? Or doesn't it matter? Do we think things will just work out OK, without any protest or other action on our part? Will they? Really? Do we have a say? What has gone wrong with us? We seem to have given up. It all seems too hard. Let's 'eat drink and be merry'. So, it seems, many of us think. In 1854 the miners refused to bow down.

The great Australian apathy doubtless has its roots in a high degree of economic wellbeing, (except the unemployed.). That is not to say that there is no concern-far from it, but the preoccupation of most people with their own concerns must be seen, at least in part, as a result of not being able to usefully affect the political process.

The function of government is to resolve differences in the community, promoting cooperative community effort. When difficult decisions have to be made harmony will always depend heavily on the fairness of the process by which they are made. The present system does not lead to consensus. By default and example, it encourages conflict.

There is a serious need to achieve a new unity of purpose for the solution of those stubborn problems that hinder national progress and wellbeing. This implies a high degree of community cooperation with government, which is beyond our capacity under existing circumstances. Real unity requires the possibility of direct involvement in the political process, for all who wish it, no matter how infrequently any particular voter may take advantage of the opportunity. For the 'silent majority', isolated as we are from effective involvement in political decisions, discussion of politics is usually taboo. Such discussion gets us nowhere-is too frustrating and even painful. People hate politics. It just makes people angry. Why? Because we can only make a noise and get upset-we cannot change anything-even participate.

The low regard in which politicians are held is indisputable evidence of the frustration of the community with government that holds at arms-length the very people to whom it should be accountable. There is distrust and hostility toward authority, and a level of concern that does not augur well for future community wellbeing. We should be very concerned with the spate of suicides, murders, child molestation and abuse, assaults, arson, road carnage and crimes of all sorts, not to mention the addiction of so many to drugs, often followed by mental disease. The pursuit of individual rights reflects fear of government. It stems from a disbelief in the possibility of a truly democratic system of government which can be fair to all, and from which all can benefit by belonging.

This climate of danger from government, or failure of government to protect the wellbeing of its citizens, is clearly linked with the absence of an evident, and detailed, accountability of government. Such fears plainly indicate a deficiency in our democracy. The power to throw out the government at election time, and replace it with another, is a power to punish, but little power for the public to enter into any constructive role in the business of government. We need something much better than the style of government we now have, with its longer-term instability and extreme policy shifts, driven by competing ideologies and ambition for power.

Progress?

The modern pursuit of efficiency usually reduces costs by reducing jobs. Such efficiency breeds many hidden costs in the community. We have made a god of efficiency. Answering machines give us a variety of music, repeated apologies, and annoyingly tell us: 'your call is important to us', instead of giving a quick response from an adequate staff. Taped responses are both a hindrance and insulting. This modern technology often fails to even inform us where we stand in the caller queue-what poor neglect of available technology! The minutes we waste, and the frustration we experience, add to consumers' costs, while the profits of the 'efficient provider' are maximised. The losers in the race to be efficient are the small and unimportant-those without a voice, or power.

Economic rationalism and privatisation are 'in'. However, blind trust in privatisation did not produce a good result in Russia. Gorbachev favoured more modest change, but Yeltsin won power with America's selective financial assistance. China's more pragmatic approach is well on the way to an advanced economy.

The enterprise and drive of individuals in every sphere deserves our respect and often, our admiration. They provide the needed stimulus, the motor, of our economy. What can make us nervous for our future though is a 'one-track mind' in government, whether 'left' or 'right'. The 'religious' fervour of ideological zealots is the real worry. 'Objective' government is considerably endangered where any group is able to dominate. The people are the only ones who can 'guard the guardians'. That is our responsibility. Are we able to fulfil its demands?

The young are disgusted

It is a pity that politicians are not more aware of the disgust with which the general public views their behaviour. The face-to-face, angry eyeballing of opponents in the House of Representatives is a disgrace to democracy. I suspect it is not that way in the British House of Commons-the mother of parliaments-where speeches, always addressed to the Speaker, are more objective and often with entertaining wit.

Following a visit to parliament by primary school children, TV interviews revealed their disgust at the behaviour they witnessed in the House. 'If that's the way they behave,' they said, 'how are we supposed to behave?'

When a leading democratic country, such as Australia, so plainly disrespects the principle of democracy in its parliamentary icon, how can there be a worldwide respect for democracy that will influence developing countries to step up to make that advance?

Only a much more genuine, and successful democracy will be able to win the world to its 'flag'.

Democracy's dilemma

While things are often perceived to be wrong, the 'powers-that-be' are preoccupied with their own priorities, so many present problems are not resolved, and anxiety for the future, which threatens to engulf us with much more serious problems, is becoming more acute.

Wrong things that happen affect us all in some measure. The trials and problems of a minority, or even one person, do not leave any of us totally untouched. 'No man is an island'. We are interdependent. Knowing of injustice, deprivation and suffering bothers us, and the rubbish scattered on our roadways and public land depresses us.

In a numb sort of way we are used to it, and the temptation is for us to believe that that is the way it must be. That isn't so, but what can we do?

Noel Hawken, at the time a Melbourne Herald columnist, once aptly expressed the national disappointment with our democracy, our frustration with the concentration on tactics and rivalry, instead of a common attack on the problems. He wondered if there was not: "a way to a more satisfactory system for Australia, to bring about 'revolutionary, but peaceful' change?" There has to be.

A quality of life

To live in a country with a government genuinely reflecting the views of an involved and caring community, could only be seen as an altogether new dimension of life. A real quality of life has much deeper roots than a mere quest for material things, but the material and the macho are deeply ingrained in our society, underlined by the sterility of our political system. It has a case to answer.

We need a new basis of ongoing opportunity for the participation of the public. Periodic voting, in 'pork-barrel' contests between rival parties, is no democracy. This is a 'least-worst' choice which produces our feeling of helplessness, apathy and, sometimes, fury. To have a part in resolving the problems, without any prospect of personal gain, would constitute an unimagined improvement in the quality of life of us all. The importance of each of us having an effective opportunity to join in, at will, with discussions of matters of concern, with an actual impact on the decision-making process, cannot be measured. Is that a pipe dream? Perhaps. Utopian? Yes. 'Idealistic? Of course it is. Without ideals to inspire there is no vision. We never just stand still. 'Where there is no vision, the people perish'19 We cannot be proud of our country if justice and fairness are not seen to be the norm. Even where justice is present, but not clearly apparent, peace and harmony will continue to elude. It is therefore not hard to see why minorities are restless, aggressive, and violent, in so many places in the world.

Since only justice can create wellbeing and peace, it is evident that a basis must be found which is seen to be eminently fair and reasonably prompt in resolving community concerns. Self-government is the way. To be able to realistically participate, in a modern and complex world, demands a fundamental change, a radical rethink of the democratic process. We need a system that will give a much greater confidence in the processes of government. Such a system must have the least hindrance to individual input. Those in the community who are concerned, a flexible, open-ended group, should be able to feel that there is no obstacle to an effective involvement. We cannot afford to be at ease. There has been a sound political sleep foisted on us by the political parties over the years. There was a time when we were the 'lucky country'. That time, (when we had our heads in the sand), is now past.

A new democracy?

Although we live in far different times and circumstances, we have a vital need to recapture some of the Athenian genius for democracy. To them the practice of democratic involvement was an important facet of life. The question is: Is it possible for us, as ordinary people, to have an effective involvement without a political commitment? It is understandable that the desire and capacity of different people to participate in any aspect of the political process will always vary considerably, even should a radical change render the system wide open to the occasional involvement of the uncommitted citizen. The usual problem, however, is the severe impediment to any realistic involvement of concerned people, not to mention the frustrations usually suffered by parliamentary oppositions and independents. Real democracy is still only a dream.

A successful individual and national effort demands a cooperative approach in all the various areas of our lives, and it is imperative that that approach be practised and exemplified in our communities, starting with our parliaments.

Successful government depends heavily on the goodwill of the people-a goodwill that must, in a time of peace at least, be based on some ability of the people to participate in the making of decisions. Decisions are made at present with little enough reference to the public, and the psychological damage to the cooperative will of the people is unmeasured and immeasurable. It is known intuitively, but is easily disregarded because the real accountability of a truly democratic system does not exist.

Democracy, as defined by Abraham Lincoln, is often quoted as the ideal of political life to be aspired to, hoped for, and reached after. Is the ultimate of pure democracy, with opportunity for involvement, as in Athens, beyond us? Perhaps more use could be made of referenda for example. It is incumbent on us to positively and energetically seek the political system best able to facilitate self-government.

We need government that has our respect-a political process, which is seen to be making the right decisions for the right reasons. Men and women with no political attachment or commitment should feel able to have a direct input of opinion with regard to public matters, if they wish. Democracy cannot survive, let alone become the world norm, unless we undertake the task of updating and improving our political process, to enable individual input into the new and difficult problems the future will bring. That is the reason we must persist with the dream of a radical change to a cooperative basis of government based on genuine representation.

We need an adequate way for ordinary citizens to be able to participate effectively in political discussion as an integral part of the political decision-making process, but without the need, or any advantage, of being committed to a political organisation. At the same time we need a way for our representative to relate, and be accountable, to the people in the electorate between elections. Our representative needs to be freed from the responsibility of defending a party image, to be a genuine representative, building a relationship of trust with constituents through regular public meetings.

There is also a need for a new, and natural way for alternative candidates to arise and be seen effectively challenging the representative in the period between elections should the representative fail in the duty of adequately representing the constituents. This could only happen in such meetings.

We need parliaments that can be recognised as non-partisan, fair and just in their decision-making, and clearly operating in the public interest. Such parliaments could have much better support from the people in response to the so-called 'tough decisions', and many of the abuses in our communities would diminish markedly. The most serious problems, despite the rhetoric, are entirely neglected and the underlying hostility towards government that the present system creates, is disastrous to good governance.

Can these aims be achieved concurrently? Is it a hopeless dream? Homer, the ancient Greek poet, once wrote, in his 'Iliad':



The secret ballot for all decisions in our parliaments is the secret which alone can undo the damage wrought by the party system, and recreate our democracy with individual independence and responsibility.

Contents Email