Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Timothy Wong

However, to avoid sounding unduly dystopian,  I would like to reply to Paul Morrella's "village idiot" problem. Interesting and innovative work (both theoretical and practical) has been carried out by American political scientist James Fishkin , who has worked closely with the American PBS station.

The "village idiot" remark it seems has caused a little consternation. Admittedly it may be a touch over-dramatic. owever, it was placed there to illustrate a point.

The point is that for every person the most important decisions made in their lives are not made through a democratic process. Seriously, who would if going for say heart surgery take the decided upon course of action of a democratic council of one hundred well meaning, and "somewhat"- informed citizens over that of a medical professor? Do we put to a vote our choice of partner? Do we put to a vote how we choose to raise up the kids? Democratic vote on where we choose to live, anyone?  I would suggest a reason many of these decisions are not decided by the "democratic process" is because the decided outcome many not be the one individually preferred.

My sin is of course to question the modern biblical importance that is placed on this thing called democracy. This is not to say I've anything against democracy; in the majority of circumstances it is the best system of government currently available, though, this is not always the case.

The problem as I see it then, is not with the lack of workable models nor with the concept of democracy itself, but rather the more brutal one of vested power in all its pernicious forms and possessions and the further problem of wresting this away from an entrenched ruling elite.

The problem as I see it is that people don't really believe in democracy, granted they think they do, and many spend endless wasted hours defending it and agonizing over the lack of it - in truth though almost nobody does. People are conditioned innately to believe they are making the "correct decision". If this were not the case even the simplest decision would never be made - life would thus be impossible. The divergence with our faith in democracy is when the "correct decision" is not democratically made. Naturally this becomes a failure of the democratic process (which itself like a biblical commandment can never be questioned), the hidden ruling elite, lack of informed data etc. How could the "correct decision" possibly not be made? The reason of course that democracy has never, and will never, absolves us from conflict.

The slimed down "localized" version is of course a direct way for us to be really heard. So as to take out the elites, and have people make better informed decisions. Naturally just like ourselves our nearest neighbours innately understand the "correct decision". If this is to be the case as I said in another post I hope the guns are checked at the door - because nobody ever really deeply knows their neighbor.

A set of unquestioned, understood, and unassailable individual rights will always trump any system people wish to put forward. Rather than democracy itself (good or bad) I would argue this often overlooked conerstone is the only thing that holds, and will hold workable democracy together.

Interesting piece Basil. But I fear that you are merely projecting idealized or utopian agendas onto our polity which is actually not democratic in nature at all.

Rather, I fear that our society is much closer to the sort of plutocratic oligarchy combined with strong and invisible theological and symbolic "hangovers" or historical residues as diagnosed by such thinkers as Carl Schmidt.

However, to avoid sounding unduly dystopian,  I would like to reply to Paul Morrella's "village idiot" problem. Interesting and innovative work (both theoretical and practical) has been carried out by American political scientist James Fishkin , who has worked closely with the American PBS station.

His model of "deliberative polling", (as detailed in his The Voice of the People) demonstrates, quite convincingly I think, that the problem is not with people's innate "idiocy" nor  with their selfishness and lack of public-spiritedness (two jeremiads all too often trotted out by venal professional politicians) but rather their simple lack of expertise (easily fixed by making such data and analysis freely available) and their lack of a public forum; again easily fixed by the institution of such forums.

(MK's Webdiary is, possibly, an obvious, ready to hand example).

The problem as I see it then, is not with the lack of workable models nor with the concept of democracy itself, but rather the more brutal one of vested power in all its pernicious forms and possessions and the further problem of wresting this away from an entrenched ruling elite.

Mark Sergeant says:

The question I would like answered is "are they going to accept the apology ?"

I hope not Alan; I remember back in the days of Mabo, one of the TV stations was interviewing a cockie; he informed the interviewer, quite frankly: "they are trying to steal our land".

Mate, I laughed my bloody wings off and spilt my scotch all over the show, and he said this with a straight face.

But never fear, this apology thing is a whole different ball game; this is about an apology for wrong doings; doesn't cost a penny. But the sad thing is it certainly typifies our material mindset when the first thing we think about regarding an apology is money.

Personally I couldn't give a shit if they sued the arse off us; especially if such a thing delivers (comic) deadpan irony as above.

Best take it for what it is, an apology; and let's hope the victims of our ignorance and arrogance will  accept the apology for what it is ("is" is something you will have to make up your own mind about).

At least some can feel good for a day or two, but most will  likely watch it on telly, change channels and forget about it.

Then as Alan says: same old same old.

PS. Are they going to have fireworks?

The last asylum seekers have left Australia's detention camp on Nauru, putting an end to the controversial "Pacific Solution" immigration policy.

The group of 21 Sri Lankans boarded a plane for Australia after 10 months in the Nauru camp, leaving it empty.

The move fulfils a pledge by new PM Kevin Rudd to end the policy, under which people arriving by boat were sent to remote camps for refugee assessment.

The regional head of the UN refugee agency UNHCR welcomed the move.

"This is the end of a long and fairly painful chapter in Australian asylum policy and practice," Richard Towle said.

"We're delighted that Nauru finally will have no more refugees on it from now on."

Kevin from heaven has kept another promise and slowly our international reputation is being repaired. Its a good example of Australian democracy in action.

I fear I've been far too long-winded Basil. Here's a question in a nutshell: What is the guarantee that the parliamentarian will not, after all the public engagement is over, simply vote in his or her own interests?

Hi again Basil. Thanks again for this thread which raises issues close to my heart.

Firstly, you repeat, "The local member, in a bid to establish credibility, will commence holding regular public meetings which will start small but soon increase as the people realise the new possibilities of democratic participation with a member who wants to please, within the limits of wider public responsibility."

This is not self-evident at all. Do you intend for this to be legislated for or do you expect parliamentarians to spontaneously begin to do this? With regard to the latter, it is common practice now for pollies - especially in marginal seats - to hold public meetings. Generally they are fairly cynical exercises as they are never given any power and are not constituted to outlast the individual meeting, which is generally tightly controlled.

A better idea I think - still with problems but in my mind much more likely to provide the sort of extra democratic dynamics you're aiming for - is for independents (or a party) to run specifically on a policy of setting up a permanent public assemblies in their respective seats (or more than one if geography insists), with an independent constitution, which can elect office bearers and develop policy, and which, whether he or she is responsive or not, the parliamentarian is obliged to engage with.

The public meetings that politicians call these days are clearly called because polling suggests that people want more consultation and engagement. They are widely regarded as cynical however. To go the extra step and constitute these meetings as a permanent, independent presence on the political landscape would be a winner in my view. They may attract only a couple of hundred people, but that's fine. Everyone enrolled to vote in the area would have an equal right to participate, nominate for executive positions, and vote.

Now moving to your insistence that parliamentarians should not be forming associations with one another at all. Firstly let's be clear that this is not a tweaking but is a profound viewpoint; a huge change being suggested, involving the abolition of the idea of a Cabinet and Ministers for one thing. It's not clear that it's even possible actually, but assuming it is, I would be very anxious about such a change.

It is not the role of government merely to conglomerate the votes of the polity. They have to govern, and at this time, despite every problem, I think Australians appreciate a very stable government - one of the most stable in the world. What I think you are obliged to provide Basil is a practical governance impact statement of the abolition of not just modern parties, but all parliamentary association. I think your eyes are too committed to the bathwater.

Finally I'll repeat my basic gripe with your suggestion. I think you're flying against the most basic democratic theory when you advocate secret ballots for representatives of thousands of people. You are in effect suggesting that they sacrifice accountability to the people in the name of breaking their accountability to the party. If you represent thousands (or even 6 for that matter) your vote simply has to be open and on the public record. That principle is to me sacrosanct and you need some very powerful argument to counter it - argument as yet not provided.

Respect. We clearly share a lot of values. When the stakes are as high as the success or failure of a huge nation, we have to think our proposals through very, very carefully. Just my views.

Basil Smith:

I do not share your contempt for ordinary citizens ('village idiots') who can, by participation soon cope with intelligent political involvement. We don't all have to be the same, but we are all entitled to be seen as equal before the law and worthwhile citizens.

The important decisions made in my life are not made through a democratic process. The most important decisions made for all people's lives are not democratic ones. The most important decisions are individual choices. Sure, people have the right to voice their views; people also have the right to not be bothered listening to them. Personally I don't care if somebody jumps up claiming drinking ones own urine promotes hair growth and that the local bridge should be built with macaroni and cheese. That is of course until it is made compulsory for me to have either take a drink or drive over the bridge! Majority (democratic) agreement or otherwise!

Personally I don't know where this view that a room full of individual decision makers will arrive at the collective correct decision any more so than happens at the moment. Most probably all you will have is a room full of people screaming at each other - I hope they check their guns at the door. Somebody being the most individualistic person in the world is certainly not an insurance policy against that person being either self serving, a lunatic or just a plain old fashioned asshole.

Did some one mention The Bold And The Beautiful, hell, who is Brooke marrying now, her step son? Her daughter's husband? her husband's brother (who is also her step son because Brooke's first husband was their father)? Shit this stuff makes the Battenburgs and the high class hillbillies of western Europe look like amateurs.

Reminds me of life in Tasmania (sans high class, let's say we are in a class of our own, but that's another story).

Fortunately I think I'm over it now and do feel much better, but my doctor suggested I continue with the medication.

Roger: “hope is a refuge when you have little else. If your pockets are full and your larder is full you have little need for hope instead you busy yourself with action.”

Not sure if hope and aspirations are the same things, Roger. Your posts are always insightful, so maybe I do not fully understand you.

Your post reminded of a John Pilger article I recently read. Here is the relevant extract:

“Travelling with Robert Kennedy in 1968 was eye-opening for me. To audiences of the poor, Kennedy would present himself as a saviour. The words ‘change’ and ‘hope’ were used relentlessly and cynically. For audiences of fearful whites, he would use racist codes, such as ‘law and order’……..”

Maybe there are alternatives to people who have to live their life in false hopes without aspirations and those who fear those aspirations.

heigh ho (or possibly "hi ho" ...)

Here's a link to the Charter for a Democratic Australia some of drew up a while back, but got no enthusiasm for ...

Democracy is in serious decline.

Today we have the head of the Australian Secret Police Mick Keelty in true form , complaining bitterly about troublesome journalists who may investigate cases before the courts.

In a nutshell, Keelty is asking that cases they investigate be done in secret. Astonishing when you consider that the AFP allowed selected TV news-crews to accompany them on sensationalised raids in Melbourne 2 years ago-with gun wielding riot squads in the dozen pouring into humble suburban houses to remove a handful of men.

It was topped off the same year with a gushing AFP spokesman announcing almost with glee the capture of the dreaded Bali Nine- a hapless bunch of would be smugglers who were allowed to leave these shores by these very same plods who were only alerted to the sad lot by a worried parent.

Keelty wants only the news he wants presented for public scrutiny- an art developed by the man who is credited with inventing modern PR-Joseph Goebbels.

Roger if the whole political process is pointless, if life is pointless, if there is nothing we can be certain of, if the masses are only concerned with bread and circuses and bonking, if Religion is meaningless, than why do you eloquently put so much of your energy trying to convince us?
Are you looking for a meaning?
Does the expression of meaninglessness give you meaning?

Cheers

A further aspect of the democratic usefulness of the ballot will occur in the Senate, which was designed to be a 'states' house by the equal numbers of Senators the states could send to parliament.

As we know all too well the party system was able to co-opt  the majority of senators and the Senate became a political parties playground.

With the ballot in place the states will be represented once more in a healthy house of review, with each senator independent and answerable to the people in that state alone, through considerable media and other exposure.

Resolution of a conflict between the two Houses could be settled by a 'joint sitting', which would be a trifling matter by  combining the two ballots.

Due to the large difference in the members it could be decided to  double e.g. the Senate votes to strengthen the Senate vis-a-vis the lower House. Just a thought.

The only people I've ever heard complaining about democracy are the people that don't get their way. The state of complaint is hence; transient. Democracy is not the problem and never has been the problem. The problem is the universal lack of individual and property rights. With such rights protected, democracy by the individual is practiced and respected every single day (multiple times).

The drift to "localism" (whatever that means), and independence is a fine one in theory. That is of course until one is living in the town with the highest per capita percentage of villiage idiots (pick a place). At times like that drifting toward the "bossy" smart guy is usually the best option.

Doesn’t this discussion work under the presupposition, that the Capitalist System is the only viable order of structuring a society?
If that is your underlying paradigm, you would have to show how the system is preventing reform.
A doctrinally managed Corporate Capitalist environment, whose life blood is mass consumerism is not about to willing allow any reform that would alter its power base.

I switched it off after the first 6 months - 5 years ago.

It reminded too much of the time I spent in Oman and the highlight of nightly TV was a re-run of "I Love Lucy" - every single night.

If the problem is lack of representation then we can have other systems of representation.

This solution allows for discussion and deliberation. 

Changing the voting system doesn't affect the representation or the process of deliberation.

The need is for the inclusion of greater numbers of citizens and for them to included in the decision making process.  The voting system is only one part of this, though an important one. 

Michael de Angelos: "Everyone with Foxtel has a problem! So much vacuous rubbish."

Everyone with Foxtel has a problem! So much vacuous rubbish.

One problem is certainly the strength of voting along party lines. Every vote should be a conscience vote – whether that will happen again though is the question. Members are elected by their local community and that is who they represent – not a party.

The problem really reached its zenith with the extra-ordinary Prime Ministership of John Howard – the most ordinary man to ever hold the post. An entire party held within his thrall – now wandering the landscape in a daze asking themselves how it happened and unable to admit they did it themselves. And the end result as Basil Smith correctly puts it – we really now have an opposition that is about as useful as, say Foxtel.

When Brendan Nelson is the best on offer – well, what can one say?

Goodness there's so much I'd like to respond to, Basil. I certainly share your enthusiasm for greater public participation and less cynical parliamentary process, so please take my comments in a constructive spirit. I'll make some general comment then just give my take on the bottom-line proposal.

Your opening paragraph gives the common and utterly false impression that our democratic institutions are the heirs of the directly participatory institutions of the Athenian polis, and that their limitations are features that have evolved due to the increased size of the population. Our current institutions have the opposite historical direction of course - they are heirs of monarchic and feudal societies who have seen an expanding franchise and an expanding public participation at the same time as rapidly increasing population. If there is a direction - vis-a-vis participation - in the development of our political institutions over the past centuries, it is the opposite direction to the one you indicate. It may seem a small point, but it's a crucial one for a historian, let alone anyone pretentious enough (like myself) to call themselves a dialectitian.

Further, when you say, "the size of populations in modern societies has inevitably caused a reliance on government by representatives that society is too big," you are not just wrong because population simply was not the historical cause of reliance on government, but you beg the question, "What are you meaning here by society?"

As things are, globalised society is governed at a number of levels, from the UN and international diplomacy, to nations (many of them federations or unions), then states, provinces and regions, and finally to municipalities and localities. Athens may have seen an extraordinary level of public participation develop, but it happened on the local, civic level. It didn't happen in the various Greek federations of poleis which recurrently came and went, or indeed for the constant level of intercity decision making for the Greek world, like the Olympics. The Greeks (Ok, Aristotle) were very clear that you could only do democracy in a city. Actually they thought you could only do politics in a city, and that despotic empire building was something barbarians (non-Greeks) did.

So it's an important question: by 'society' are you meaning the World, Australia, or Gympie? I can see no infrastructural or technological reason why Gympie couldn't be a voluntary direct democracy. The only logistic question (obviously I'm ignoring current political reality) is how much power that level of governance should or could encompass.

I've gone on about my own ideas in this direction elsewhere, so I'll get to my thoughts on secret ballots in Parliament.

I hate the idea. The object, to break the hold the party has on voting blocks, would most certainly be achieved, to one extent or another. The votes would no longer be solely along the lines of party interest. But they wouldn't somehow suddenly be in the public interest either. They would now be made, quite independently of any rhetoric the parliamentarian (still with the need for votes) feels the need to make, in the parliamentarian's self interest. Because they are representatives of thousands of constituents, it is absolutely essential that their votes are transparent and accountable to their rhetoric and propaganda. This idea is simply bad. Sorry.

Unfortunately for my argument, I haven't got a better trick for breaking the hold of parties in Parliament. As far as I can see (after not a little thought), the only way we can get there from here is to vote for independents or for parties that have a working tradition of allowing their members to vote with conscience. It would be very hard to legislate against parties, as indeed association between members is crucial to the institution of parliament. We must never forget that it has to govern, and history is full of examples of what happens when government stuffs up. The stakes are high. Even if we did vote for all independents next election they would immediately form into voting blocks with various levels of discipline, or parliament and government would break down completely. If you look at available examples around the world in the 20th C, both of these things occur.

Who we vote for is still up to us. As a polity we are extremely alienated, more-or-less ignorant, and very busy, so we're easily manipulated, but we can't get around the final responsibility for our choices.

Richard, I can see possible advantages with electronic voting on actual issues or even Bills of Parliament, but not as many as you might. Most importantly, it simply fails to address the main flaw in our representative system which is alienation, and the capacity for major power/money brokers to mass-manipulate public opinion to the point of farce. It also raises the real problem, which you allude to, of the ease at which electronic information can be changed.

There is a direct (face-to-face) participatory layer in our society of course, not with regard to decision making directly but in the discussion which precedes decision making. Actually this is true in every society in history and ours is probably the most pitiful in scale - households, coffee shops and pubs basically. This is the only level at which most citizens argue about politics in the presence of people with bodies and especially eyes; people who we have to see again and associate with. This is the only level at which truth in motive (the interests question) is transparent.

It is my view that it is this lowest level of 'governance' (to use the term as loosely as you can get it) which can be expanded and institutionalised in communities. The worst rot is not at the top - it is alienation at the bottom.

So if our members vote by secret ballot on various legislation how do we know what our members vote? Whether our member voted in the interest of the constituent or instead in the interest of the powerful lobby group with lots of money for the next campaign and media power?

Even the so called conscience vote I say is undemocratic unless they made it clear during their campaign how they would vote in such an issue.

Basically I suspect that parties are there to buffer the population against the policies that would be collectively unpopular – that everyone at home would push their little "no" button for, but that in the long term are necessary and intelligent folk would realise the details of the options and agree or the elite really want. Imagine..."free beer"? yesss. Increase PBS fee?(thus enabling it to continue at all) noooooo. etc.

It has a touch of the Ben Elton Blind Faith scenario when a gathering of 250000 can vote on an issue and pass it, Hallelujah!(great book , anyone read it?).

Basil, you have certainly identified a problem – modern democracy in all its images and smoky mirrors, and praise is yours to start the ball rolling with new ideas to improve. Watching the US elections is certainly a lesson in how bad it can get. Watching the Kenyan elections is what happens when they find out and watching the French elections is what you get when you didn't watch and watching the Iraq elections is what you get when you didn’t vote. And Chile – Allende, Suharto ,Haiti and Gaza show what happens when the wrong one, unannounced , gets in. And Italy when no-one gets in. Or is it everyone?

Democracy is so confusing. No wonder so many settle for a dictatorship/monarchy. Always the same coin-face.

Anyway Basil, if you can sort out question time (agree agree) and get the media to prominently report what goes on and make a war vote a majority parliament permission then that would be all wonderful in my eyes. :) Maybe even attainable.

Wonder what the media was like in Athenian days? Did they have to sing it everywhere to get the message through? Maybe we haven't progressed far.

Cheers

Thanks Trevor.

For 'ballot' on every entry read 'secret electronic ballot' - always!

The electronic secret ballot will be of simple design which can be easily audited. Its construction will enable very fast counting of votes, Each ballot will be automatically deleted after each vote and reset for the next - no records will be secreted in the system at all.

It will be so quick that progressive votes during debate will be frequently used to guide the debate to a solution as rapidly as possible. The number of members speaking will depend on the trend of debate, increasing where the outcome looks shaky. The system will be very efficient in the use of parliamentary time and enhance parliament in the eyes of the people.

Was I dreaming, or has this piece been altered since it was first published?

Never mind, it's a great idea and one that other parliaments could be investigating. If I could make one suggestion. The key to the proposal - electronic voting - ought to be made more obvious.

Democratic ideals got a good run in Barack Obama's speech after the South Carolina vote.

Fiona: You aren't imagining things, Trevor. Basil asked for this to be published in place of his original article as the present piece sets out his arguments in greater detail.