Revitalising the essence of democracy

By Simon Longstaff

This article was published in Living Ethics: issue 81 spring 2010

The ongoing health of our democracy relies on authentic individuals who seek public office in good faith, genuine parliamentary debate and constructive media reporting that helps citizens chose how to cast their votes, writes Simon Longstaff.

Australia should be proud of a number of fundamental aspects of its system of government. Perhaps most importantly, we share a broad political culture that allows for the peaceful transfer of power – an achievement that should never be underestimated.

Furthermore, our governments are (for the most part) competent and free from corruption – a testament to the enduring quality of Australia’s public servants who maintain a steady hand despite the occasional shenanigans of the political class.

Finally, most of the people who seek public office do so in good faith and with a clear intention to play their part in making a better society. The life of a politician is not an easy one and we should admire those who are prepared to accept the very real sacrifices entailed in this form of public service.

Yet, despite these underlying strengths, I believe that the quality of Australian democracy has been degraded over the past few decades. The loss has been most evident in three key areas: the marginalisation of parliaments, the consequences of the ‘professionalisation’ of politics and political parties and the failure of the media to play its proper role in a democracy.

Parliaments

Even those with the most cursory knowledge of the history of Australia’s political institutions will recognise the extraordinary debt we owe to those men and women who fought the Civil War(s) in England, Scotland and Ireland to establish the primacy of Parliament over the Crown.

So, to witness a number of Australian parliaments progressively reduced to being little more than ‘rubber stamps’ for the Executive has been disturbing. To a considerable degree, the reduction in the effective standing of our parliaments has been a product of the iron grip exercised by the major political parties on the process of government.

Labor has a reputation for being absolute in its demand for conformity to party room decisions when Members vote in Parliament. Those who break ranks and resist the discipline of the party ‘Whip’ are expelled as ‘rats’ (the worst epithet a Labor party member can earn).

The Liberal and National Party coalition allows for a greater measure of discretion. However, in practice, the coalition parties exact a considerable price (in lost opportunity) for those who cut against the party grain. The only real exception to this is when Members of Parliament are accorded a ‘conscience vote’ – a relatively rare occurrence that prompts one to wonder if conscience has so little role to play in normal circumstances.

Party discipline (defended in the name of stability) is, however, only part of the problem. A larger question concerns the lack of opportunity for Australian parliamentarians to flourish outside the Executive. As things stand, ambitious and committed parliamentarians are most likely to be lured by the prospect of a position on the ‘front bench’ ideally as a Minister of the Crown. Apart from this, the only other route to advancement is in association with the Office of Speaker (or President – in the upper houses).

Perhaps we need to develop a career path for parliamentarians – complete with some of the ‘perks of office’ enjoyed by Ministers. In doing so, we might encourage some of the best and brightest in Parliament to look beyond the world of the Executive to the Parliament as the forum in which their talents might best be used for the public good. It is not difficult to imagine what such a development might look like in practice.

The Congress of the United States of America offers one model – in which the senior members of Congressional Committees enjoy considerable status – along with additional remuneration and privileges. In turn, this encourages parliamentarians to ensure that the work of committees is relevant. Of course, the US parties exercise much less discipline on their members than do their Australian counterparts. However, even accounting for these differences of tradition and temperament, I think it would be restorative of parliamentary democracy if a cross-party approach was taken to the task of bolstering the relevance of the legislatures – and their members. There would be some cost to the public purse – but I think that the money would be a wise investment.

Politics

The past three decades has seen the ‘professionalisation’ of politics and political parties. One of the salient features of parliaments formed in the aftermath of the Second World War was that, despite their lack of gender and cultural diversity, they did contain a broad cross-section of men who had been drawn from all walks of life and who had erased many of their class differences when fighting alongside each other at war. Most importantly, people were elected to Parliament after having made their way in a variety of occupations beyond politics.

Today, the major parties tend to preselect from within an established political class. Its members include ministerial advisers, party apparatchiks and union officials – superbly equipped to play the game of politics. However, one wonders if such people are as well equipped to make sense of the more mundane realities of daily life? Do they have the experience needed to be authentic representatives of the people in their electorates? The achievements of those who excel in the political arts are not to be dismissed.

Our democracy might be the lesser if entrusted to enthusiastic amateurs. Then again, it might be immeasurably better. I really think it’s time for the political parties to preselect more of those with achievements in the wider community. Such people may not have party lore etched into their bones. And perhaps they will not be as tempered as those who have passed through the crucible of party politics. However, they may be more authentic representatives of the people – aligned to party ideals and philosophy (if such things still exist) while drawing on a broader field of experience.

The media

The media prides itself on playing the role of the ‘fourth estate’ – a critical and disinterested element in the democratic mix. It is this role that justifies the media in its otherwise intrusive conduct – probing, checking, testing even to the point of belligerence. Unfortunately, if the evidence of the recent election is anything to go on, then many people in the media (especially the electronic media) seem to have forgotten the purpose they are supposed to pursue. In essence, the role of the media during a democratic election should be to assist citizens to make an informed decision when they cast their ballot. It is solely in the service of this purpose that the media should act.

Alas, some journalists treat elections as an opportunity for them to star in a sparkling gimcrack of forensic questioning – a practice that throws light onto the journalists rather than the issues. There are times when it might be useful to ‘catch out’ a politician being inconsistent. There are also times when the detailed analysis of political tactics can be informative. But surely both pursuits must be secondary to the principal aim of helping citizens to become better informed about the issues that are genuinely important rather than merely interesting. In a healthy democracy the media should themselves resist the pressures of the twenty-four hour news cycle and the allure of personal celebrity.

As noted at the beginning of this article, the heart of Australian democracy beats strong. However, the health of our democracy should not be taken for granted. Instead, we need to revitalise our institutions from time to time; to exercise their better parts so that they do not grow weak as a result of indifference or the baleful effects of unthinking custom and practice.

I doubt that the electorate intended Australia to have a hung Parliament following the Federal Election. Yet, perhaps this outcome is yet another example of the ‘wisdom of crowds’. So, like many other optimists, I hope that the extraordinary result of the recent Federal Election will come to be seen as the necessary ‘shot in the arm’ that Australian democracy required to revitalise its essence.