1 October 2024

Does democracy need a refresh, with people’s polls and limited tenure?

| Peter Strong
Join the conversation
20
Legislative Assembly building

Is it time to change the rules to ensure a turnover in the Legislative Assembly? Photo: Michelle Kroll.

Democracy isn’t broken – but it’s always heading that way. That is why elections are important. That way, we can manage change, maybe by keeping the good politicians or getting rid of the bad ones and getting new faces.

Elections are the events that keep democracy going. I, and many others, are standing as Independents at the ACT election to be held on 19 October.

So, how are we going in Australia with democracy? Pretty good, but it does need a refresh. For example, in the ACT, we see that democracy is stagnant. The ACT has had a Labor-Green government for 23 years. Boring, yes – but also dangerous.

Nationally, we have had either Liberal-Nationals or Labor governments forever. That has worked well – just look at the envy from most other countries for our economy and society. But in recent years, we see independents rising and new parties emerging – a short-term phenomenon or an ongoing fact?

Have they risen due to the failure of political parties on integrity? Due to the Robodebt fiasco; or the environmental failure, or the workplace relations wars that only benefit a few; or with managing the cost-of-living crisis? Or do the major parties just communicate badly?

READ ALSO Overseas migration pushes ACT population over 470,000, but fertility rate continues to slide

We do need a refresh because things have changed – a lot. Our population has increased and has become even more diverse. People’s behaviours have changed, and their needs have changed as well. We now have the Internet of Things, smart devices, social media and much more online access to information and communications. We have a plethora of web-based influencers, the dark web online scammers and multi-national technology goliaths collecting all our information and using it who knows how.

People don’t seem to join organisations in the numbers they once did. The major parties do not have the membership levels they once did. Union membership is also at its lowest level ever. So, the catchments for the parties to choose candidates for elections have declined to the point where the major parties truly represent minorities – not society.

How to refresh democracy?

Many countries have Citizen Initiated Referenda, or as I prefer to name it – a People’s Poll. This can be a way of reinvigorating democracy – giving more people a chance to have an impact.

This approach already exists in New Zealand, Switzerland and within various states in the US.

As an example, if enough people ask for a poll, say 5 per cent of all voters, then the government must run that poll and abide by the outcome. The relevant Electoral Office would be the body that receives any petition and acts – after checking that the signatures are from bone fide voters and the quota is reached.

Having a People’s Poll as an option will promote government responsiveness and accountability. If officials ignore the voice of the people through normal day-to-day government, then the people will have an available means to make needed laws.

A People’s Poll will produce open, informed debate on critical issues that otherwise might not be adequately discussed.

Interestingly, the left of politics will argue that the far right would hijack the process; then, the right of politics would argue that the far left would do the same thing. In the end, the majority of people would have a say – not the minority. It can’t be hijacked. These People’s Polls would not happen often – 5 per cent of voters in the ACT is some 23,000 people. But they would be an option for the people. I think the number should be lower – say 10,000 people signing a petition.

There are also other mechanisms for engaging the population, such as People’s Assemblies and Citizens’ Juries – these can also be considered.

READ ALSO Forget about a new pool in Commonwealth Park: Canberra’s underwater rugby club has other ideas

The next way to refresh democracy is to get a turnover of politicians. We see politics has become a career for many people. They start as staffers in political offices and then eventually become a politician themselves. Experience of community or anything really is always through the lens of politics. Politicians of any party come from a much narrower membership base than ever before.

Not only could we reinvigorate with a People’s Poll, but we can also ensure new faces by implementing limited terms of 12 years for politicians. Radical, but it is achievable and well worth considering. It would need a referendum for changes to terms in office. I bet people would agree to this proposal – even though the major parties would hate it, especially the factions. Limited terms for individual politicians would change the nature of politics forever.

Politicians are not bad people – there have certainly been some shockers, yet the majority are fine or fine-ish. Many just tend to stay too long. Let’s reboot, refresh and energise our democracy. Let’s prepare it for the continued and unexpected changes facing the future of society and the planet.

Peter Strong is standing for the ACT Government elections in the central electorate of Kurrajong as a member of the Strong Independents.

Join the conversation

20
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I dislike democracy for the same reasons Aristotle did. I think a vote is fine to solve coordination problems, but there can be no legitimate vote that infringes on people’s Natural Rights, and that’s basically a consistent action by all governments now.

Even then, it’s interesting that you note that our population has grown. One thing Australians have agreed on since the 90s is that we want lower immigration. Not none, just not as much. One thing, however, that we’ve had consistently increasing since then, regardless of government, is increasing immigration, to the point the rate is more than 10 times higher now than in the 90s.

Another problem is the permanent bureaucracy. Some departments and bodies are overtly political, others hide it better, but as those people never change with elections, it is actually their political positions that end up driving policy regardless of government. How many Senate reports are really needed about the incompetence of ASIC before something is done about it, for example.

It says a lot about a political candidate when he starts spruiking New Zealand’s citizens initiated referendums! I remember CIR’s were first proposed by Kate Carnell back in the 1990’s and were criticised and voted down when her party introduced legislation into the assembly at the time.

CIR’s are initiated by citizens on any issue via petitions, many with very minimum support. Sponsor’s of CIR’s have included extremist and green groups, nationalist, religious and pro-life movements. Topics have ranged from battery hen production, family, prostitution, law and order and terms of imprisonment. CIR’s are expensive and time consuming to undertake, and voting is not compulsory. Their use has been criticised by politicians and academics in Scandinavian countries, NZ and the US as an unnecessary substitute for existing democratic processes. Criticisms have also included using loaded questions to target vulnerable minority groups such as those from the LGBTQIA+ community and illegal immigrants to strip them of their legislative rights.

Our Assembly does not need another layer of laws in which extremists, pressure groups and vested interests have the power and money to procure the results they demand!

I love the idea of People’s assemblies. Leave things to the pollies to sort out takes too long. We need an intermediate mechanism that allows for issues to be addressed, when they need to be addressed. Also, having the numbers represents a problem too. eg allowing 15yo to change their sex without parent’s permission is just wrong. Yet Labor had the numbers and most of us did not know that it occurred. Something else to fix.

The absolute unchanging truth exists and can be known.

To say otherwise is a contradiction because it’s an absolute unchanging truth that’s known.

As such, the absolute unchanging truth isn’t democratic, and democracy can’t be based on absolute unchanging truth, in which case what’s the bloody good of the thing to anyone?

Democracy is therefore only for open minded people – so open minded that they’re brains have fallen out.

Thus, instead that old chestnut of “danger to democracy” trotted out by those for whom even democracy is much too complicated (being among the least democratic goobers we’ve ever seen), I prefer to ask what is democracy a danger to?

Paisley gnus are an unchanging truth that exist and can be known.

To say otherwise is a contradiction because paisley gnus are a truth that’s known.

Any other brilliant arguments, Vasily M?

Democracy has invariably been a danger to theocracy. Tough.

Byline, the fly

I might, but I’m waiting on one from you.

Logic dictates that an absolute unchanging truth must exist and can be known. To say otherwise is an absolute unchanging truth that’s known, and is therefore a logical contradiction.

Just replacing it with paisley gnus doesn’t invalidate a thing – the laws of logic (and, specifically in this case, the law of non-contradiction), still hold, with you just standing there with your limp paisley gnus in your hand.

What else you got for me, Iron-stein?

Vasily has discovered self-referential paradoxes. Amazing.

Why do you assume that absolute truth must be a binary proposition or that anyone here is suggesting definitively that there is no absolute truth?

Chewy

You’ll have to show me what an absolute unchanging binary truth is.

Further, in a democracy, democracy comes first and everything else comes after it, depending on what the people prefer. What’s preferred or not today can therefore be different to what’s preferred or not tomorrow, including democracy itself. Democracy is therefore self defeating as the seeds of its own potential demise are inherent to it.

Vasily,
your paradox is suggesting that there is a binary choice around “absolute truths”, except you are the only one saying that, so I’m not sure why you want me to explain your position for you.

You are just providing an example of Russell’s paradox, if you want to, you can go and learn all about how it’s dealt with in mathematics and set theory. What you think it has to do with democracy, I have little interest in.

Chewy

I misread what you said and at the same time wasn’t aware that what I said was binary. In fact, I still don’t know why you say that.

I’ve looked up what you suggested and I can’t yet understand how what I said is an example of Russell’s paradox and why it offers a binary choice around absolute truths.

For instance, a common example used in the paradox is the book that lists all books that don’t list themselves. Does it list itself? If it does, then it shouldn’t and if doesn’t, then it should.

Compare that to what I said: absolute unchanging truth exists and can be known. Saying otherwise would be absolute unchanging truth that is exists and is known, and is therefore self-contradictory.

Why is what I said an example of Russell’s paradox, making it a set of all sets question, and providing for binary choice in absolute truths?

Consider a set, lets call it “absolute truths”

If the set is empty, saying the set is empty is in itself an absolute truth, which means the set isn’t empty.

That is Russell’s paradox.

The binary choice you are presenting is someone saying that absolute truth exists and someone else claiming that absolute truth doesn’t exist.

But no one here has claimed anything like that except you, you are arguing against yourself.

The paradox creates a situation where the conclusion is both true and false at the same time, however that doesn’t seem to apply to what I said, which is essentially “absolute truth exists” and “it would be incorrect to say otherwise.” Both statements are absolute truth statements that are congruent with each other, not contradictory, paradoxical or binary.

In other words, while saying “there’s no absolute truth” might be paradoxical, saying “it’s wrong to say there’s no absolute truth” isn’t; it merely compliments “there is absolute truth” – both saying the same thing but in a different way.

Democracy is just a popularity contest, with a lot of really, really stupid people being allowed to decide who runs the circus.

Look at the US for example. Apparently who Taylor Swift is voting for will change peoples vote. 🤣

That has to be the biggest argument against democracy I have ever seen.

I think democracies are failing full-stop and tinkering at the edges with ideas like people’s polls are just that, tinkering. It seems to me that democratic governments these days are held to ransom and stymied from completing their agenda by refusals and dilution of outcomes by opposition parties. Look at the US, a bi-partisan border bill stopped by the House, directed by a wannabe dictator who isn’t even elected ATM. Labor’s housing goals stopped by the Libs and then the Greens with their, as usual, untenable demands. Voters get tired of governments that can’t achieve their goals, get mired in politics, or creep forward at a snail’s pace, and boot them out. Then sabotage themselves by voting in minority governments as a way of protest which perpetuates the unproductive, endless adversarial cycle. Democratic systems reward parties seeking office that can frustrate governments into inaction. Hold-ups in the senate (in our case), creating doubt through misinformation and opposing media partnerships is the new way to get elected. I wonder if the solution is a move away from the adversarial time wasting, getting rid of the senate and having one house. If you vote for a government and let them get on with it. It’s not as easy and simple as that, but do your tinkering to find alternate ways to ensure checks and balances.

Consider for longer how people are elected, before counting the Houses. There are better electoral systems, different systems of electorates, and even sortition. Rather than looking for someone to “get on with it”, consider what promotes more reasonable, longer term, discussions among groups, i.e. not the type we usually face here.

A couple of countries have Citizen Initiated Referenda, including NZ. How has it worked for them? What’s it done for them? How has it been misused and did that work (someone always tries to abuse a policy)?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.