The Party's Over

One of the major issues identified at a 'World Cafe' gathering of 300 people in May 2007 was the need to improve political awareness and education. How can we achieved better awareness and engagement in the system? 

A major issue raised by the 300 people attending the World Cafe event in May 2007 was the need for institutional reform - what sort of reform is required in the institutions of Government to strenghen our democracy? 

Have a look at this video released by the newDemocracy Foundation. We would love to know what you think and how the message sits with you.

 

If you do away with preferences being distributed then parties would no longer get elected solely due to the deals they cut, the primary vote winner would win. 

The ABC as it is now is a government service. Yet we all talk about it as if it is an independent body- the realit it is not. Debates in recent years, funding issues and questions over board composition have highlighted this issue. The BBC in the UK recives a mandated levy from every citizen which ensures it's independence from governments. The PBS in the US is supported completely by subscription and then sponsorship. Should we not establish a tax levy that goes directly to the ABC to esnures its independe and sepration from government? 

We are currently in Election mode - where is the means for the electorate to have its voice heard, amid the flood of promises, new money, better tax deals, etc? Would a Citizens’ Charter, articulating the rights and responsibilities of the citizen as participants in the governance of the nation, steer our politicians to a more consensual form of democracy? 

A major issue raised by the 300 people attending the World Cafe event in May 2007 was the behaviour and accountability of our politicians. Does this switch people off politics and block participation? If so what steps should we take to change the status quo? 

What if we could break down party loyalties? What if candidates could only be shown by name on ballot papers so each individual condidate would have to establish their identity and what they stand for in the community. This would help independents and would also marginalise more seats. 

There has been a lot of talk on this site (this page, the Senator Online Page and in Karthik's Corner) about the lack of ethics and trustworthyness of our politicians. This is a real problem. They say whatever it takes to get elected and then do something different. I think instead of the worm we should have the politicians hooked up to a lie detector during election debates. That really would be revealing! 

Do you agree with the interviewees? Use this area to discuss your views.

 

The way to break the stranglehold of parties (and their leaders) is to make all MPs fully independent in parliament - to freely debate and vote according to electorate interests (only) - by requiring all decisions in parliament to be by ballot. (This would probably reqire a constitutional change, to be fully effective.) MPs thus set free to vote in parliament as independents would be divorced from those minority and wider interests which create parties - and powerful leaders. Therefore, without any party connection or support, their status at election as independents would mean that claiming a party affiliation read more  …

Considering the reform of parliamentary government by means of ballots in parliament, there are many aspects that need to be examined for, in fact, no aspect of what we call ‘politics’ would remain the same. For example:
1. The changed status of the members of parliament 2. The new role of these (newly) independent members in appointing (and retiring) those members judged suitable for the role of Minister, as a member of the parliamentary executive. 3. The new role of ministers as responsible to parliament and in a new responsibility for their bureaucratic departments. 4. The new role of the various media. 5. The matter of secrecy. 6. The ballot and its affect on elections. 7. Ballot democracy as a moral enabler, in parliament and community.
 

A matter little-debated, but whose economic significance demands much more, is the validity of this PPP approach to public investment in the largest infrastructure needs of the country. Why do this when, such projects could be better carried out by government agency, with much cheaper public finance? Is it because partisan government, with a penchant for quick political points,just takes the easy way out, avoiding the effort and responsibility of a more demanding public service? Is public enterprise inherently inefficient and uneconomic? If so, why? Surely the quality of our leading politicians could hardly be regarded as insufficient to handle such enlarged responsibilities, when we consider that on retirement they are soon snapped up at large salaries by private enterprise. Perhaps the blame lies at the door (once more) of the dysfunctional (and unaccountable) basis of 'democratic' government.

 

Political commentary is plagued by a collection of terms that carry a pejorative connotation. Discourse would be more balanced if they could be replaced with words that were even-handed. Here are some examples.
‘Back-flip’ and its colourful variants, ‘back-down’ and ‘about-face’ are terms used to indicate a change of mind or a different approach. Politicians are entitled to change their minds in the face of new evidence, different thinking or changed circumstances; the opposite, sticking stubbornly to an outdated or untenable position, is foolish. So why not use terms such as ‘change of mind’ or ‘different approach’, or ‘new tactic’ or read more  …