Report a comment
Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.
Comment in question
| Democracy, the "Demos" & representativ Written by Dell Campbell, on 30-10-2007 09:07 JJ asked me to post this response here Define "Democracy". To do that, one has to define "demos". Two score and sixteen years ago, "Demos" was defined (in my Grade 3 history book - Gr 3 was then 5th year of schooling) as: "Any Australian citizen over the age of 21, who is not insane or in prison, has the right to vote" ... followed by statements about "secret ballot" (an Oz first) and "compulsory". Note that the Oz "Demos" has since changed. In all of the old democracies, Athenian, Roman, pre-Reform Bill English and Australian (when I was in primary school) the Demos had defined rights and responsibilities. Australian followed the English model in which rights were balanced by compulsory voting, and for males, militia training ("Nahso") and jury service. With "Demos" defined (you can see from the one example given, both the right to vote, and the defined nature of civic responsibilities, have changed in my lifetime) the next question is "What structure?"; a question that has troubled democrats since the Roman Decumviri were (reputedly) sent to Periclean Athens to study their democratic model. They were seriously underwhelmed & unimpressed, with good reason. "Shambles" is probably an apt description and "decision" probably what Athenian democracy was least capable of reaching. The Decumviri went home and they & their successors tweaked the Roman representative model which, further tweaked by Normans, generations of Englishmen [sic] various Reform Bills & changes to what people of what sex and age made up the "Demos", is pretty much what we have today. In Australia, the elective bi-cameral system, with property qualifications for Legislative Councils and "Demos" defined as male aged 21 and above, was adopted by states. The federal parliament substituted a popularly elected "States House", the Senate (which rapildy became party political), for the Legislative Councils. "Demos" was changed to include women, although they did not have to meet the men's responsibilities (militia, jury service), then the age dropped to 18. Queensland's Legislative Council voted itself out of existence (? in the 1920s?? 30s?). Only very recently has the last Legislative Council relinquished special property or electoral qualifications. Is there a better structure which is more "representative" of voters? The Republic aside; modern Oz versions of the Decumviri still face the same dilemma: Is there a better system that doesn't end up in a shambles (ironically, "like Italy")? Both houses elected on the Senate system? Some variation of Tasmania's Hare-Clark system? "National Cabinets" with proportional representation? It is has, in my "politically aware" lifetime, almost never been a major issue, except when one party has been through years of an entrenched government they believe is not representative of them, or they live in a "blue ribbon" seat. Quite frankly, in a lifetime of political arguments, esp in a union / university setting, I can't remember any other major issues than voting age during the anti-Vietnam War era and the Republic. The main reason is, I think, that, until Howard, especially Howard Rampant with a Senate majority, all governments have been more or less representative of the nation as a whole, with "More or less" being outside the core of agreed Social / Political Justice values plus, divisions over wars, immigration, tariffs etc . Australia was a representative liberal democracy. In some periods, Libs were seen as better; in some (especially in war time) Labor. On the whole, we don't change governments often. I'd say "Happy" but "happy with the government" is in somewhat the same category as "Happy farmer." . Last edited by DeeCee (Yesterday 15:24:2  |
