Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Alga, I agree with you. Enfranchisement of some significance would certainly make a vast difference, as I have written for the last thirty years.  http://ballotsinparliament.org/contents.html .

Regarding referenda, New Zealand have adopted optional Citizen Initiated Referenda which must make the government nervous enough to listen, even if it lies unused.

But I personally believe that the electoral forums, run by all  representatives, made independent by ballots in parliament for all decisions, would confer a basis of ongoing community discussion and consultation which would be of unimagined social, as well as political, benefit to the people, whose values are  now  so fragmented, and unsolved social problems  proliferate.

Am I looking for  heaven on earth? It would be nice!

I basically agree, John. But if the push for q republic scceeds we must get the best arrangement we can - one which protects parliamentary government, such as it is, but perhaps results in an inspirational head-of-state, if possible. If not we would be better without one, but in that case we need a much better democracy than we now have, to keep some check on our politicians.

I liked your article but, being in italics, I wondered if it was yours or not?

I postulated some time ago a world parliament based on democratic  principle (ballotsinparliament.org/pressure.html/ ) with representation based on population:

            China       1250,            Brazil        175,    

             India        1000,            Pakistan  140, 

             USA           300,             U K             60  

             Indonesia 220,             Australia    20. 

             Russia      150,

Any modification of these figures to accommodate national interest  would be plainly undemocratic and fail.

We talk glibly of democracy and solutions but we are so far from this (and world justice and peace) it is not one bit funny.

When I hear politicians talking reverently of the national interest I feel like heaving.  The fact is that pollies just seek to please the crowd without any intention of listening to us. We are fodder for manipulation.

While the people might be led to look at sacrifice for the rescue of the world's poor, in theory, we are wedded in fact to the political party which will look after the (our) national interest. ( A really good elected president might just answer our need for democratic inspiration. )

We are wealthy and selfish, controlled by our economic fears, with little will to face the world's future.

We could be otherwise, but would require a brand of leadership which will not exist until we have remodelled our democracy to give the people the representation and the power which would engage our conscience. We know about the world's problems,  but while we are disenfranchised we can blame the politicians instead of voting for anything really significant.

Meanwhile death and starvation are the lot of the multitudes. And it will get worse before it gets better.

Fiona: There is a convention on Webdiary, Basil, that anything in italics and (usually) indented is a quotation from some other source. Where possible, Webdiarists also provide a hyperlink to that source; alternatively, they cite a page reference, author, publication etc. John's source was an article - Need for new world organisation: European Community shows the way - by P.B. Sawant, a former judge of the Indian Supreme Court. I have checked John's link, which unfortunately doesn't take one directly to the article; the link that I have provided should work better.

(In truth, going to WA for 10 days.)

O dear, Kath lives over there and someone told me a guy named Scott purchased a repossessed Potomac.

Justin pouts and sips his scotch.

The problem of establishing a perfect civil Constitution depends on the problem of law-governed external relations among nations and cannot be solved unless the latter is.

Immanuel Kant

Mankind has always been confronted with the challenge of eliminating the divisions in it, which are more psychological than physical, and more social and political than natural. These divisions have obviously been created and successfully utilised by the vested interests to serve their narrow selfish ends. The divisions will not, therefore, end until the scope for utilising them for the selfish purpose is eliminated. The need is to evolve a social order which will leave no such scope. Can we devise such social order internally in each country, and internationally the world over to tackle these common problems of the world?

Nationalism was once a force which served to unite the sub-national groups, to form a nation for united effort for common development and progress, and to eliminate the group conflicts and bring about peace and tranquillity for a large section of the humanity. But the narrowly conceived national interests soon gave rise to misguided patriotism and jingoism, resulting in wars between nations, one more deadly than the other.

The first and the second world wars, which were the result of misdirected spirit of nationalism, led to the half-hearted attempts at organising the nation-states first into the League of Nations, and then into the United Nations, for preventing future wars and for the common development of mankind.

The first body, on account of its loose constitution, feeble structure and ineffective operation was never taken seriously by anyone, whether the strong or the weak. The constitution and the operations of the second organisation have more than proved the worst fears that were expressed at the time of its establishment. The dice were heavily loaded, by its constitution, in favour of the strong, and with their veto power, they were free not only to defy the assembly of the nations, but also to resort to any unilateral action for their own advantage. The forum so far has failed to prevent wars, give relief to the needy and to uphold the rights of the weak and the just. On the other hand, the forum has been used by the powerful for justifying the unjust, for blocking the desirable measures, for promoting their selfish interests, and for deriving the maximum benefit to themselves.

The constitution and the functioning of the present UN is power-oriented and not people-oriented, and they have, in fact, accorded power a legal status above that of the people. The adage that might is right has been legally sanctified, and power is granted a licence for its unbridled play. The assumption that those with greater economic and military power have a higher sense of wisdom and responsibility betrays a feudal tendency. It is neither rational nor democratic. On the other hand, the psychology of man works to the contrary, and history has proved it more forcefully in international life.

Power, figuratively called the super power, which has arrogated to itself the power of policing the world and has virtually displaced the UN.

Power is being ostensibly used in defence of democracy and humanity, but is in effect being unashamedly exercised for self-aggrandisement. The uncontrolled naked dance of this power has become an international terror. No nation state, no section of humanity nor even democracy in any part of the world is safe, unless it pays its obeisance at its altar. Along with it has come a pile of the deadliest nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the increased insecurity for the entire planet.

We were forced to accept the power-based structure of the UN for without it the powerful nations would not have joined it, and without them, the purpose of the organisation would have been frustrated. But even with them, one now experiences the futility of the organisation every day. How can one create a world organisation devoted to world peace and progress, disarmament, security of life, to raising the standard of living of every human being, devoted to the protection and promotion of the environment, to bringing about equitable distribution and consumption of resources, and to the planning of population, and which, at the same time, is democratically organised both for policy-making and its implementation, and maintains effectively the rule of law and punishes its violations through democratic process.

There is no problem without a solution. A world parliament consisting of the representatives elected by the people from the constituencies drawn on the basis of the population spread across the nation-states and a world government elected by such parliament seems to be an obvious answer. But in such an arrangement it may be feared that the populous nations may have an undue advantage, unless the value of the votes from such countries is suitably reduced to ensure a balanced representation.

This done, parliament so constituted, and the government elected by it, should have all the powers to devise measures to solve all common problems facing mankind, and to enforce the solutions. The international judicial forum suitably structured can help the parliament and the government, wherever necessary, to implement the objectives of the world organisation.

The obstacles to this desirable measure will be many. The powerful nations will not cooperate, the nation-states will refuse to forego their sovereign power, the regions rich in resources will not share them with others, the vested interests in the present economic, political, social and religious orders will resist the changeover, and the militarists will refuse to part with their privileges. Fortunately, the European Community has shown the way, though that experiment is confined to a limited area. To facilitate the eventual establishment of the world parliament and the world government, we may begin with the constitution of the organisations on the pattern of the European Community, across the appropriate regions of the world with suitable modifications, if necessary, to accommodate the regional peculiarities.

What is most necessary is to change the fossilised mindsets of the peoples everywhere. The most difficult thing in the world is to change the human mind, and when the concepts such as those of the world parliament and the world government demand of the people to switch over their minds from the age-old beliefs, biases and prejudices, the resistance is bound to be stronger.

But on the positive side, we have the instances of the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the UN and the European Community. Even these ideas were new and unfamiliar when originally conceived. The threat of common dangers to mankind, which cannot be averted except by common efforts, has also been dawning on the minds of the people everywhere for some years now. The time is ripe for an intellectual revolution to push the world towards a new era by launching such a revolution. Only a revolution of this kind will help us eliminate the present malignant forces, and realise the goal of the world parliament and the world government for the benefit of all.

Now that's an idea that should be at the 2020 summit.

“My position here is unequivocal. (Alga, take note.) It’s not that I consider the majority too stupid to vote responsibly but they are most definitely uninterested. “

Scott, I have had heard just the opposite from patrons of the many many hotels, clubs and motels I operated as a changeover and liquidation manager, before owning my own pubs. Politics is a big part of their discussions, both local, national, and international. People are interested, it's just they have been disenfranchised, so tend to seem disinterested. It's a well known fact: if you are dealing with a large group and you concentrate the power, decision making and participation to just a few, the majority become disinterested, disruptive and sheep like. But if you involve all in every process and give them all some responsibility, they become involved, interested and a very useful asset to the project. People need to feel they are wanted and have some say, not alienated, belittled by bureaucrats and subjected to constant lying and corruption. I believe someone will be putting up at the 2020 summit, a proposal to make it illegal for politicians and bureaucrats to lie. I bet this never makes it beyond the first step, as with being able to be unaccountable, deceitful and constantly lying, politicians and bureaucrats can't function. It's a part of their makeup, as with all useless clones, they don't know truth from their programmed propaganda.

We have had the current system of the elite controlling the future for hundreds if not thousands of years; it hasn't worked as we see by the state of this country and the world. So for Australia to survive, we need to take a lateral approach and that is to engage the people and give them a say in their destiny. Referendum style of government is a lateral approach and can be implemented easily with our current technology. This gives people the opportunity to be a part of creating the future, and as I believe people really do want a say in this country they will think deeply before casting their vote. Unlike now they have no choice, so just vote without real thought, as our current forced preferential voting system only allows the lib/lab coalition to be counted as relevant and the hanger on lip service parties get the crumbs.

Scott Dunmore: "You might well be right but you’re confusing me here. Which camp are you in?"

I'll go with whichever outcome provides the most practical benefits for the least cost. However, I notice that even one of the republicans over at Larvatus Prodeo (Katz) had this to say:

"If we get the process of transition wrong, the sheer difficulty of peaceful constitutional change may be a cause of much regret.

The alternative, of course, is non-peaceful change of the Constitution. That’s how most constitutions have come into existence. Violence simplifies matters because we would be spared the intricate task of tipping new constitutional wine into old institutional bottles."

My suggestion is the republicans keep that sort of thinking well and truly behind closed doors.

You say the details "would be written in the hypothetical constitution" - but that won't be written until after we've embarked on the Republican road.

Can we all turn back to Westminster if we don't like the Constitution?

I rather think not.

"But her frequent, well informed observations, sorry but to whom do you refer here?"

Sorry, I was speaking of Katz at Larvatus Prodeo there.

Scott Dunmore: "Have you been following my line of thinking on this topic? What do you make of it? I suggested a president with the power of veto only which is pretty muh what the GG has now. Unfortunately after the events of '75 the role has been symbolic only. At least with an elected president there would be some teeth there and a prime minister who was answerable to a supreme authority could not, without his/her consent, take this country to war against the wishes of the people."

But who knows what powers a President, let alone an elected President, would presume to hold?

 Over at Larvatus Prodeo, 'Katz' made this very startling observation:

"Morever, the queen is mentioned dozens of times in the constitution. Do you want all the powers of the crown to be given to the new head of state?

For example, what about this one:

59. The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known."

 So, should President Martin Feguson or President Cathy Freeman have that power at their disposal?

But her frequent, well informed observations and lucidly expressed qualms about the "debate" over the Republic are casually swept aside, or ignored in favour of inane blather about whether to adopt "the Irish model" or "the Finnish model" with an insouciance better suited to choosing between this or that pair of new shoes.

Not to mention remarks from the moderator there like “where we try to work out what we would want” while discussing how to put this or that plan or other over the broader population.

They don't know what they're talking about. But they're determined "we" will have a republic of some sort, and that the rest of us will get to say either "yes" or "no" to their proposal - despite Katz also pointing out that such an approach itself might be unconstitutional.

 I reckon the Republic push will fail again, because the same intellectual lightweights are still in charge of the campaign.

This from your thread, Scott:

“Thus I am proposing a model of government for our country along these lines. That the states be abolished as political entities. I recognise the personal (shall I say tribal? you can’t even call it regional) identification. That has to be preserved.

That we have a national government only and regional bodies that are run by bureaucrats and technocrats appointed by the national government. That we have a head of state, president if you like that is elected mid term with only the power of veto, by the populace. Two terms max.”:

And this today

“At least with my model there would have to be consensus and a balance.

Bugger the people; a majority of them don't know shit from clay.”

How do you get consensus when nothing will change? Bureaucrats are already running local government and they have stuffed it completely. Abolishing the states is also not consistent with sanity as this would only disenfranchise the people even more, as they would be pushed even further away from government control, which the elite would take great advantage of. All your ideas are doing is entrenching the current system, so the corporate and elite can take more of the country's resources for themselves. It's just another form of failed privatisation.

Basil Smith: "For the last thirty years or more we have had heads-of-state who have not interfered with elected government, merely acting in a formal role, and an elected president can function in exactly the same way,"

So, what's the point of electing the president if his/her role is merely a formality, merely functionary? What policies or options would the presidential candidates campaign on when soliciting votes? Their capacity to be more "formal" and less pro-active than each other?

Why would people vote for either one or the other if they can do nothing? Because this or that candidate promised to do less than the other?

By voting for them, you'd confer on them some sort of mandate. They'd be expected to do something, not nothing.

People who support the republic have little idea how radically destabilising creating the role of president is. How it shifts power away from parliament into the hands of the president.

People in Zimbabwe and Pakistan and Kenya who have tried to turn their Westminster system into some kind of presidential republic are paying the cost of that sort of nonsensical experiment, that utter failure to appreciate how a president shifts authority and power away from parliament, how destabilising that is.

That's not because Zimbabweans or Pakistanis are less intelligent or less educated than we are - it's because they were seduced by the "liberationist" rhetoric of the decolonisation process which fancied that a "republic" somehow mean you were "more free".

Now look at them.

When the American revolutionaries created the role of president, they were very aware that they were creating a potentially very powerful role - and shifted executive authority and the cabinet out of their parliament (or Congress) into the executive branch. The legislative branch under their system exercises initiatives which can be vetoed by the president at any time, they have to scrutinise the very powerful office of the president continually, as does the judiciary (Supreme Court). The legislative branch lost a huge amount of power in a trade off of checks and balances.

People like Madison and Franklin and Paine thought very carefully about this, and the debates went on for years.

Our republicans by contrast are obsessed with gesture and symbolism. They neither know what they're doing in practical terms, nor can say why in terms of practical benefits.

They're laying the groundwork for a massive, enduring political catastrophe which they'll eventually walk away from as casually as they inflicted it upon us.

“Actually, there are several reasons why we should adopt a Republic:

• It's been tried successfully in several other Commonwealth member states (Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Uganda, South Africa, etc)”

Eliot, I love your definition of successful. Could you please provide evidence of the success of the above quoted countries, in business, human rights, freedom, poverty, economics, justice and living standards since becoming republics.

The republican debate is just the same old tired ploy to try and move the people’s minds away from the disaster the current political system has and is creating. A republic of the kind the elite want would only bring about more suppression than the current corporate controlled lab/lib dictatorship. We don't need a republic, we need a governing system which represents the 21^st century and not the 19^th. To get that we have to get rid of political parties and have government by electronic voluntary referendum. The only form of political advertising should be the declared legally binding polices and business plans for the portfolio a candidate wishes to apply for, placed within the media at government cost a week before the elections and no other form of advertising or promotion should be allowed. This way you stop the opportunity for corruption and unbalanced propaganda provided by vested interests. All government appointments should also be made in the same way, even bureaucratic appointees should be made to place their credentials and business plans before the people, so the people can decide the best person for the job and not corrupt politicians and vested interests.

“George Bush is a good enough reason for me to dismiss the idea that “mindless idiots” calling the shots is a good thing. Candidates for the presidency should be determined by a two thirds majority of the house.”

This is how you get idiots in power, by letting the complete fools in government have more power over our lives instead of less. The only form of government this country should have is one fully accountable and determined by the people, all government should be subservient to the people in every aspect. We don't need a president, we need sanity and sustainable evolution of our culture, not more of the same failed stupidities being advocated by the ideological clones of the world. Why do we need a head of state anyway? All it's useful for is to pump the egos of the elite, so they can con the people even more.

Inevitable - as all things are, but I predict at least 20 years away (if any of us are still here including the Royal Family).

I also think that the botched Republican movement - yet another of Howard's disgraceful derailments of a perfectly reasonable and legitimate debate that Australians had to have, and were entitled to - was a prime example of just how sinister and dark this bloke was. Supremely selfish and Machiavellian but of course in journo speak, "an amazing poltical operator"!

It's also what has tainted Malcolm Turnbull so badly in the eyes of the public and why he will never be PM and why his coming role as leader of the Liberals will be disastrous compared to Brendan Nelson.

Actually, there are several reasons why we should adopt a Republic:

• It's been tried successfully in several other Commonwealth member states (Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Uganda, South Africa, etc)
• Only stupid Commonwealth member states still have the Monarchy (Canada, New Zealand, the UK, etc), and why would we want to be like them?
• Don't let sleeping dogs lie, that's what I say
• The Queen is not elected to office, unlike a President (eg Robert Mugabe)
• A future Australian President will be appointed by Cabinet, unlike the unwieldy system we have for appointing Governors General
• The Queen and her minions hardly ever set foot in this country and seem merely content to do pretty well whatever the Australian government tells them to do. Shame.
• A President would have his/her powers strictly defined in law (to be discussed at a later date)
• Discussion about the Republic can take over where the 20.20 Summit ends off - filling the gaps in the evening news usually devoted to discussing things like unemployment, poverty, Aboriginal life expectancy, the environment, housing shortages and such stuff

I mean, you'd be a fool not to support the Republic.

Basil:

‘that the US founded the state on the federal principle, being unwilling to have Washington control everything, says something.

While Britain has long had unitary government and now is edging towards regional autonomy.

But both are weak and unsatisfactory examples of democratic parliamentary government, although the Westminster system functioned better in Britain than our version, possibly because we are a rebellious lot. But then our rebelliousness enabled the reform of elections with the secret (Australian) ballot, now common throughout the world.

Australians rebellious? Compared to the English /Scots/Welsh throughout the years that parliamentary democracy was developing?!

Please! You simply repeat an Australian delusion. The ‘Australian ballot’? Like the oft quoted line that South Australia was the first with universal suffrage? It wasn’t of course, by approximately 150 years, and it just might be that France introduced the secret ballot in 1795.

However, I do agree with the broad scope of your ideas on reforming the system.

What if the maximum donation to a political entity was restricted to $1000 per person, per year, and was restricted to entities within your electorate?

What if a candidate had to raise whatever money they spent upon their campaign within their own electorate, and had a limit on the amount of personal funds that they could employ?

(It is rumoured that Malcolm Turnbull spent the equivalent of 5 years backbenchers salary on initially getting elected.)

This, it seems to me would break the power of the parties, which I see as the greatest weakness in the system.

Limiting elected representatives to a maximum of two, maybe three terms would also be a move in the right direction.

The limit would have to apply to all levels of politics. So you couldn’t go from council, to state, to federal and do the two or three terms in each.

I think I may have made an unjustified assumption on this thread:

For the last thirty years or more we have had heads-of-state who have not interfered with elected government, merely acting in a formal role, and an elected president can function in exactly the same way,

In fact the appointment being by the Prime Minister (and leader of the Opposition) may well have had something to do with their diplomatic stance in this office.

So, where does that place us with respect to an elected head-of-state? Could they, in any way, be a problem for parliamentary government. We know that there is a popular interest in an elected president, but why? Is it because of dissatisfaction with party executive government with the feeling that an elected president could see 'fair play'?

That would mean that the one chosen by the people would probably be determined in an election with political influence, funding and campaigning - in other words an American style president and a much weakened parliament - a practical disaster - with a split in political authority with which an irresponsible electorate could play merry-hell.

On the other hand with powers clearly defined the people might think differently. For example:

Phil Cleary, Real Republic/Direct Election Movement, is optimistic, commenting:

It is a ridiculous notion that Australians would elect a vacuous celebrity or partisan politician.

The earlier referendum nose-dived, without cross-party support for the 'minimalist' government model. Cleary comments:

Australians won't be dragooned into supporting a republic that shuts them out of the political process. The challenge is to develop a republic model that addresses the concerns and aspirations of Australians. If that means a model that avoids the excesses of the American system, then so be it. Contrary to the claims of some, it is possible to fashion a republic model that restricts the ability of big money to determine the outcome of a presidential election. Any number of constitutional lawyers has confirmed this.

We certainly need to be clear what would be the best criteria for a presidential function, considering the strengths and weaknesses of our present system. Perhaps the best (and most electable) person would be one who is not ambitious for the role at all, being free of any partisan support or pressure and have a respect of the people generally.

Doubtless, Governors-General have never sought the office, which has no doubt contributed to the integrity of the office. This basis of a peoples' choice is considered essential in any move towards a republic, to protect our system of parliamentary government.

We are in a bit of a quandary. We badly need a greater involvement of the people in our political life. The future of the world has many difficult, even dangerous, problems looming which demand the full attention of the people to face the sacrifices which they will incur. We are all in this but ours is a failing system.

The real answer of course is for us to adopt a non-partisan parliamentary system based on ballots in our parliaments, with direct accountability, and Prime Ministers who are elected from the ranks of parliament, having the respect of all, but no executive power, who can very well function as leaders in parliament and as 'elected' heads-of-state, dispensing eventually with any need for another.

If there is anything more effective in the way of wasting time and energy I'd be surprised to see it. Where is the difference between this model and what we have? Howard took us to war against the overwhelming wishes of the population. We had a Governor General who is Commander in Chief of our defence forces and sat on his hands. What more needs to be said? It must be apparent that I am in favour of constitutional reform but this isn't in any real sense. If you want a debate go back to my thread. (Bruised ego? maybe but surprise at the lack of interest in a subject that is fundamental to our nationhood , most definitely.)

Greg Barnes isn't the only one getting in a twist. Andrew West has made a broad brush attack on republicans in New Matilda. We are being told that we are wasting time on a republic debate because there are more pressing needs. Yet precious media space is being used up to tell us this. I'm with you on an Irish model. Or at least a debate about one.

Fiona: Welcome to Webdiary, Kevin. Yes, let's have a debate.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has reaffirmed his personal support for an Australian Republic a day before he is due to travel to Windsor Castle to meet the Queen.

Mr Turnbull, formerly the head of the Australian Republican Movement, said that "timing is everything" when it comes to referenda.

"To get the issue on the frontburner, I think you need an event, and the obvious event is when the Queen's reign comes to an end," he told ABC Radio.

He said the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, would not have a view on the prospect of an Australian republic, which remains a matter for the Australian people to decide.

Kevin Rudd should now turn his attention to the republic and the important national symbolism it represents. The Government is now controlled by a party whose policy is that our head of state should be an Australian who embodies and represents the traditions, values and aspirations of all Australians. The Government has an obligation to implement the policies for which it was elected.

It’s time we revisited constitutional reform and asked the Australian people what type of republic we should adopt. Let’s get moving.
David McKenna
Australian Republican Movement
Williamstown, Vic

With the three major political parties now supporting a republic (the liberals will when they replace Nelson) it is time to set the date - possibly at the end of the Queen's reign.