ASIA
27 July 2022
DEMOCRACY, WHAT IS IT ??
Glen Robinson shares his thoughts on democracy.
The events over the last 2-3 years have really highlighted the question on democracy, a descriptive term we all use to describe “something” but what is that “something”??? To be sure, it probably means different things to different people, but in reality, democracy is a phantom which is difficult to actually define.
The purists will argue that democracy is: The government of the people by the people, which really means Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
As one can imagine there are many more definitions, but most are just minor variations of the above. The major requirement seems to be that we must have regular elections to decide who, or which, shall be the governing officials. It would appear that if elections are conducted, then a democratic process has been conducted and that appellation may be applied to all activities within that organisation. That seems to be the criteria, but it does seem to be too loose. If we look at the process, we can individually make our own decision on whether or not it is wholly democratic.
Each of the members represent an electorate which contains approx. 100,000 electors, so it is not unusual for the size of electorates to be modified as the population changes. The members in this house are elected every 3 years, but can stand for re-election for as many times as they choose.
The Upper House is the house of review, where all proposed legislation is reviewed prior to becoming law. This house is staffed by senators who represent a state, the number per state is dependent on the population of the state, and the total number equates to approximately half that of the House of Representatives. There is a specific process through which proposed legislation passes to ensure that all aspects have been considered.
The senators are elected for a 6-year term and can stand for re-election as many times as they choose. There is an election which coincides with the election of the House and 50% of the senators stand for re-election.
The processes within the parliament are sometimes criticised as being too convoluted, however, to ensure that the end result is in accordance with the overall requirements, cross checks and re-checks are sometimes necessary. These controls ensure that democracy exists within the parliamentary system.
In all it is a significant process.
Firstly, the “repeat offenders” ie those individuals who were part of the outgoing parliamentary group can offer themselves up for re-election and this is probably the largest group. Then there are the various splinter groups, some of which will be well organized organisations and others will be individuals, and the political parties must select the individuals who will represent them in the election.
There is a major exercise by the relevant govt dept preparing for the election, in everyelectorate and geographic location, assembling those who are to submit themselves to theelection process.
There are a number of processors which are set in motion on the announcement of as election, and they are outlined in the following paragraphs-
1)The political parties each have a committee for each electorate, and that committee must decide who the next applicant should be
-- if that present incumbent is from their party, they must decide if that endorsement is to continue, and if so that becomes a series of decision on how they shall provide support in the general election
-- if indeed, they decide a new person is warranted they must go through the exercise of selecting that person, generally through an election process, particularly if another person, or persons, advise that they wish to be the next candidate. Then once selected, the decision must be made on the how they shall provide support in the general election
-- there is the option of a “Captains Choice” a reasonably unpopular process in which the party just select a person to be their candidate, and then decide the support the selected person shall receive.
2) the splinter groups, not necessarily political, but have a social or economic agenda, so they join to pool resources and increase their presence. They go through a very similar process as the political parties, in relation to the present incumbent, which may be endorsed for the upcoming general election, or the group must decide on a new or alternative person to represent them. It is highly unlikely that a “Captains Choice” processwould be adopted.
3) coming to the Independents. They do not have a group which represents them, so they must make all their own arrangements, encompassing the structural arrangements and the financial support. It is not easy unless they have individual financial and logistical support.
This process apparently ensures that our representatives are qualified for the role and that they represent the feelings and objectives of their electorate. A close inspection of the process and a critical consideration puts a question mark over the process in relation to democracy in the process. There are many in the electorate who believe that this process is not totally democratic.
Political Parties. The local member may represent the political party to which he/she belongs, not necessarily the views of the local area, however, if the views of the local area align with the views of the political party, all is ok.
Pre-Selection. in the event of a political party or other organisation which wishes to have their candidate represent them in a particular electorate, they must appoint the candidate, and in most cases, the persons who wishes to represent that party, put themselves up for an election then they tend to go through a preselection process. The actual form of that preselection process can vary, and particularly if there are several people who wish to be the representative, but basically if there are several people who wish to represent the party in the general election, there is a pre-election selection process whereby the party elect their representative who will stand for election at the next general election. The actual voters in the preselection process are representatives of the party, and the numbers can be quite small only in the hundreds It is possible, and it occurs regularly, that several organisations must have a preselection
process prior to the general election.
Helicopter Selection Or “Captains Choice”. It is not unusual for a potential member to be appointed to the position without going through the normal selection process, as they are just appointed to the position usually by the executive of the branch. This method often brings criticism, either for the “captain” and/or for the appointed person and that person has to overcome the stigma of being the Captains Choice, and not the choice of the branch members or the party itself.
However, it is not unheard of for an elected political party to proceed with an oft stated policy with which the electorate disagrees, or the electorate which had originally agreed with or did not disagree with. But the electorate now has a change of mind and now is in disagreement with the original policy, but the government chooses not to change its policy.
We are now in disagreement with the government, and unless the government changes its policy to align with the wishes of the electorate, we have an “undemocratic” situation.
Similarly, if it is the government which changes its mind and changes the policy post the election, but there has been no change in the position of the electorate, that too creates an “undemocratic” situation. This could be a serious situation, but it is usually rectified by the next election. If this does not rectify it, then a very unstable and unfortunate situation is experienced, and the only solution is in the hands of the individuals of the government in that they have the opportunity to change the composition of the decision makers in the government to overcome the hiatus. A most unusual course of events.
When one considers some of the international events of the last 2-3 years of countries which profess to be democratic, it is clear that on selected major issues, they act in a non- democratic way. Probably the worlds biggest, certainly the loudest, proponent of democracy is the USA, and yet according to surveys undertaken in 2019, approximately 60% of the population would be more than satisfied with an income tax rate of 70% on particularly high incomes, but it is unlikely to occur as the law makers would not make the change. Similarly, in Australia in the years around 2020 approximately 70% of the population wanted action taken to mitigate the effects of climate, but the law makers would not make the change. There are other examples of the situation as outlined.
The only action to which we can describe as being democratic is actually the action of conducting an election.
The purists will argue that democracy is: The government of the people by the people, which really means Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
As one can imagine there are many more definitions, but most are just minor variations of the above. The major requirement seems to be that we must have regular elections to decide who, or which, shall be the governing officials. It would appear that if elections are conducted, then a democratic process has been conducted and that appellation may be applied to all activities within that organisation. That seems to be the criteria, but it does seem to be too loose. If we look at the process, we can individually make our own decision on whether or not it is wholly democratic.
THE PARLIAMENT.
In the Australian federal parliament, there are two houses to be elected, the Upper House or the Senate, and the Lower House or the House of Representatives. In the Lower House each of the incumbents are a representative of an electorate and as such have been through the selection, and then the all -important general election process, and under normal situations they hold that position until the next general election. This house debates and generally initiates legislation, which if passed is sent to the Upper House for review.Each of the members represent an electorate which contains approx. 100,000 electors, so it is not unusual for the size of electorates to be modified as the population changes. The members in this house are elected every 3 years, but can stand for re-election for as many times as they choose.
The Upper House is the house of review, where all proposed legislation is reviewed prior to becoming law. This house is staffed by senators who represent a state, the number per state is dependent on the population of the state, and the total number equates to approximately half that of the House of Representatives. There is a specific process through which proposed legislation passes to ensure that all aspects have been considered.
The senators are elected for a 6-year term and can stand for re-election as many times as they choose. There is an election which coincides with the election of the House and 50% of the senators stand for re-election.
The processes within the parliament are sometimes criticised as being too convoluted, however, to ensure that the end result is in accordance with the overall requirements, cross checks and re-checks are sometimes necessary. These controls ensure that democracy exists within the parliamentary system.
ELECTION PROCESS
To arrive at the point of having the election so that the various representatives can be selected, there is a frenzy while the political parties and the splinter groups go through their selection processes in deciding who will represent them in the election.In all it is a significant process.
Firstly, the “repeat offenders” ie those individuals who were part of the outgoing parliamentary group can offer themselves up for re-election and this is probably the largest group. Then there are the various splinter groups, some of which will be well organized organisations and others will be individuals, and the political parties must select the individuals who will represent them in the election.
There is a major exercise by the relevant govt dept preparing for the election, in everyelectorate and geographic location, assembling those who are to submit themselves to theelection process.
There are a number of processors which are set in motion on the announcement of as election, and they are outlined in the following paragraphs-
1)The political parties each have a committee for each electorate, and that committee must decide who the next applicant should be
-- if that present incumbent is from their party, they must decide if that endorsement is to continue, and if so that becomes a series of decision on how they shall provide support in the general election
-- if indeed, they decide a new person is warranted they must go through the exercise of selecting that person, generally through an election process, particularly if another person, or persons, advise that they wish to be the next candidate. Then once selected, the decision must be made on the how they shall provide support in the general election
-- there is the option of a “Captains Choice” a reasonably unpopular process in which the party just select a person to be their candidate, and then decide the support the selected person shall receive.
2) the splinter groups, not necessarily political, but have a social or economic agenda, so they join to pool resources and increase their presence. They go through a very similar process as the political parties, in relation to the present incumbent, which may be endorsed for the upcoming general election, or the group must decide on a new or alternative person to represent them. It is highly unlikely that a “Captains Choice” processwould be adopted.
3) coming to the Independents. They do not have a group which represents them, so they must make all their own arrangements, encompassing the structural arrangements and the financial support. It is not easy unless they have individual financial and logistical support.
This process apparently ensures that our representatives are qualified for the role and that they represent the feelings and objectives of their electorate. A close inspection of the process and a critical consideration puts a question mark over the process in relation to democracy in the process. There are many in the electorate who believe that this process is not totally democratic.
PROCESS IN PRACTISE
There are a number of issues or events which seem to be at odds with the basic principles and objectives, and these are discussed.Political Parties. The local member may represent the political party to which he/she belongs, not necessarily the views of the local area, however, if the views of the local area align with the views of the political party, all is ok.
Pre-Selection. in the event of a political party or other organisation which wishes to have their candidate represent them in a particular electorate, they must appoint the candidate, and in most cases, the persons who wishes to represent that party, put themselves up for an election then they tend to go through a preselection process. The actual form of that preselection process can vary, and particularly if there are several people who wish to be the representative, but basically if there are several people who wish to represent the party in the general election, there is a pre-election selection process whereby the party elect their representative who will stand for election at the next general election. The actual voters in the preselection process are representatives of the party, and the numbers can be quite small only in the hundreds It is possible, and it occurs regularly, that several organisations must have a preselection
process prior to the general election.
Helicopter Selection Or “Captains Choice”. It is not unusual for a potential member to be appointed to the position without going through the normal selection process, as they are just appointed to the position usually by the executive of the branch. This method often brings criticism, either for the “captain” and/or for the appointed person and that person has to overcome the stigma of being the Captains Choice, and not the choice of the branch members or the party itself.
THE ONGOING.
Once in power the elected government theoretically must act in accordance with its original promises or policy, as supposedly this was the premise on which it was elected, and the electorate expects those promises to be enacted in accordance with democratic principles.However, it is not unheard of for an elected political party to proceed with an oft stated policy with which the electorate disagrees, or the electorate which had originally agreed with or did not disagree with. But the electorate now has a change of mind and now is in disagreement with the original policy, but the government chooses not to change its policy.
We are now in disagreement with the government, and unless the government changes its policy to align with the wishes of the electorate, we have an “undemocratic” situation.
Similarly, if it is the government which changes its mind and changes the policy post the election, but there has been no change in the position of the electorate, that too creates an “undemocratic” situation. This could be a serious situation, but it is usually rectified by the next election. If this does not rectify it, then a very unstable and unfortunate situation is experienced, and the only solution is in the hands of the individuals of the government in that they have the opportunity to change the composition of the decision makers in the government to overcome the hiatus. A most unusual course of events.
When one considers some of the international events of the last 2-3 years of countries which profess to be democratic, it is clear that on selected major issues, they act in a non- democratic way. Probably the worlds biggest, certainly the loudest, proponent of democracy is the USA, and yet according to surveys undertaken in 2019, approximately 60% of the population would be more than satisfied with an income tax rate of 70% on particularly high incomes, but it is unlikely to occur as the law makers would not make the change. Similarly, in Australia in the years around 2020 approximately 70% of the population wanted action taken to mitigate the effects of climate, but the law makers would not make the change. There are other examples of the situation as outlined.
SUMMARY
It is an interesting position to be in, we all profess to support democracy and loudly criticise those autocratic, non-democratic countries, however, when the actions we take and many of the rules and values which we adopt are probably not democratic. In reality, the actions of the parliament seem to be democratic, the process up to the election which includes the election of candidates is very questionable, the election itself is almost certainly held to democratic principles, but some of the decisions and actions of the parliament are very questionable.The only action to which we can describe as being democratic is actually the action of conducting an election.