Can our democracy be saved?

Can our democracy be saved?

By Kaye Lee on April 18, 2014 • ( 19 )

When
you see Tony Abbott as Prime Minister, Joe Bullock elected in front of
Louise Pratt, Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker, Tim Wilson given a job as a
Human Rights Commissioner, Sophie Mirabella building submarines, and
Alexander Downer showered with gifts from every direction, you know
democracy is ailing if not already dead. It’s time for change.

As things stand politics in Australia is now the
province of a political class that now offers a lifetime career path in
federal and state parliaments, the public services and quangos. Entrance
to this world often involves nepotism and cronyism. There can be few
other legitimate jobs with salary packages over $300,000 that can often
be obtained with virtually no experience and qualifications and little
restrictions on second jobs or holidays.

Equating integrity with paying more money, flies in the
face of history. By paying politicians starting salary packages of over
$300,000, more people are attracted who could not get that salary level
elsewhere. In fact people pursuing material gain should be discouraged
from entering politics.

There is certainly no evidence that the massive
increases of salary packages in recent years has increased benefits to
the public or improved the quality of members or ministers compared to
governments of the past. Far from paying peanuts and getting monkeys,
paying more peanuts seems to attract gorillas.

Our system of government is an archaic farce. It was developed in the 18^th
century and did not anticipate the corruption of process that the two
party system and the various factions, lobby groups and donors have
produced.


An enormous amount of time and money is wasted on useless bickering
and out-dated ceremony. This is an organisation entrusted with the role
of running our country. It’s important. But our system has led to many
professional politicians with little or no general life experience and
unscrupulous opportunists, unburdened by ethics, who obsessively pursue
power, money or both.  Parties gift electorates to family connections,
malleable party hacks and mediocre apparatchiks.


The money spent on spin doctors and advertising and polling and
campaigning and jetting around for photo opportunities is outrageous and
to what end? Why should parliament be adversarial? Do we really need an
Opposition? Why can’t it be a collection of men and women whose
experience and expertise make them suited for this most important
responsibility?


If the 150 federal seats were awarded by the percentage of first
preference votes received, the two major parties would have 118 seats
rather than the 145 they currently occupy, the Greens would have 13, PUP
8, with 11 “others”. This would actually represent the “will of the
people”.


Switzerland has been described as the closest thing to a true
democracy. Parliamentary elections are organised around a proportional
multi-party voting system and executive elections are organized around a
popular vote directly for individuals, where the individual with the
most votes wins. The third type of election, referendums, concern policy
issues.


Parliament, known as the Federal Assembly, is made up of the Council
of States (46 seats – members serve four-year terms) and the National
Council (200 seats – members serve four-year terms and are elected by
popular vote on a basis of proportional representation).


The two chambers of Switzerland’s national parliament meet several
times annually for sessions of several weeks and in between, conduct
meetings in numerous commissions. But being a member of parliament is
not a full time job in Switzerland, contrary to most other countries
today. This means that members of parliament have to practise an
ordinary profession to earn their living – thereby they are closer to
the everyday life of their electorate.


The government is a seven-member executive council, elected for a
four year term, that heads the federal administration, operating as a
combination cabinet and collective presidency. It is a Coalition of the
four major parties, each party having a number of seats that roughly
reflects its share of electorate and representation in the federal
parliament. The President, elected for a one-year term, has almost no
powers over and above his or her six colleagues, but undertakes
representative functions normally performed by a president or prime
minister in single-executive systems. They share the role around.


The Swiss executive is one of the most stable governments worldwide.
Since 1848, it has never been renewed entirely at the same time,
providing a long-term continuity. Changes in the council occur typically
only if one of the members resigns (only four incumbent members were
voted out of the office in over 150 years); this member is almost always
replaced by someone from the same party.  Most members retire after two
or three terms. Since 1990 Switzerland has had some 22 ministers in
federal government. In the same time we have had a kaleidoscope of
around 300 ministers.


The really remarkable thing about Switzerland’s political system is
Direct Democracy – the extraordinary amount of participation in the
political process that is granted to ordinary citizens.


Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament.
If that person is able to gather 50,000 signatures (out of 5.1 million
voters) against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be
scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority of the voters whether
to accept or reject the law.


Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to
make to the constitution. For such a federal popular initiative to be
organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18
months.


The parliament will discuss the proposals, probably set up an
alternative and afterwards all citizens may decide in a referendum
whether to accept the original initiative, the alternate parliamentary
proposal or to leave the constitution unchanged. Initiatives that are of
constitutional level have to be accepted by a double majority of both
the popular votes and a majority of the cantons, while counter-proposals
may be of legislative level and hence require only simple majority.


The frequent use of referenda is not only encouraged by Switzerland’s
Constitution, but practised with enthusiasm by the citizens.
Approximately four times a year, voting occurs over various issues;
these include both Referendums, where policies are directly voted on by
people, and elections, where the populace votes for officials. Federal,
cantonal and municipal issues are polled simultaneously, and the
majority of people cast their votes by mail. Between January 1995 and
June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, to answer 103 questions.
Several cantons have developed test projects to allow citizens to vote
via the Internet or by SMS.


The threat of a referendum called by a party defeated in parliament
on an issue causes the parties to be more willing to negotiate and
compromise. As extreme laws will mercilessly be blocked by the
electorate in referenda, parties are less inclined to radical changes in
laws and voters are less inclined to call for fundamental changes in
elections. There is no need to dismiss the government after a lost
referendum, because the referendum solves the problem – preventing an
extreme law – more efficiently. On the very same day, three new laws may
be accepted and two others rejected.

Most people today believe they should have a right to
have their say in all decisions that affect them. Yet the usual position
of politicians is to say “we were elected to make the decisions and if
you don’t like it vote against us at the next election”. This view is
totally unsatisfactory. It is the decision people are interested in, not
revenge some time later. In addition general elections provide only a
mandate to govern – they do not provide a mandate for all or any future
decisions except in rare circumstances.

 Serious reform in Australia is perhaps many years into the future
and the obstacles and enemies of democratic reform are many. The
political parties and their partisan supporters’ overwhelming interest
is in gaining power and preserving the political duopoly. Big business
is implacably opposed to more democracy. It wants more centralisation of
power. It currently employs more than 600 registered lobbyists in
Canberra and spends millions of dollars to subvert democracy. Big media
is always constrained by its owners’ interests. Since the Second World
War there has been a growth of corporate propaganda to protect corporate
power against democracy.


With the possibility of a Republic back in the front of mind thanks
to Tony’s knights and dames folly, it is time to reignite the discussion
about just what sort of a democracy we want.