Archive for the ‘democracy’ Category

Violence, democracy and the mass media

Thursday, June 9th, 2011

It can hardly be denied that violence has a peculiarly vicarious allure in the modern mass media environment, regardless of whether we are talking ratings, book sales, ticket sales, clicks, or good old-fashioned circulation. Think James Patterson, the “world’s best-selling author”. Consider the amazing proliferation of “acronymy” crime dramas (CSI, NYPD, SVU, …) showing in primetime across the globe, the drooly critical praise for programs like The Sopranos and The Wire, and of course the Underbelly phenomenon in Australia. We might not “like” violence; indeed many or most of us despise it, but it sure does tend to get our attention. As notionally interesting as the latest deliberations of parliamentary sub-committee D31 are, we can’t expect our [yawn] elected representatives to seriously compete for our time and interest with this week’s fictional serial killer, can we?

The supremacy of violence (perhaps rivalled only by sex) as an attention magnet in today’s information-saturated world poses some serious questions of old-fashioned peaceful protest in the democratic tradition. Arundhati Roy, speaking to Stephen Moss in The Guardian about her ties to Maoist guerrillas in India, sums things up quite succinctly:

Does she condemn that violence? “I don’t condemn it anymore,” she says, “If you’re an adivasi [tribal Indian] living in a forest village and 800 CRP [Central Reserve Police] come and surround your village and start burning it, what are you supposed to do? Are you supposed to go on hunger strike? Can the hungry go on a hunger strike? Non-violence is a piece of theatre. You need an audience. What can you do when you have no audience?”

Violence attracts audiences. When up to 500,000 people marched peacefully through the streets of London in opposition to the Conservative Government’s cuts agenda in March this year, most people outside the UK only heard about it because of the violent actions of a tiny minority of self-styled anarchists and thugs. And whilst peaceful protest has underpinned most of the populist movements of the so-called Arab Spring, violence has clearly had a role to play, from Mohamed Bouazizi’s defining act of self-immolation in Tunisia, through to the mortar attack on President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s compound which looks likely to prove decisive in Yemen. The magnetism of violence has arguably even created a perverse imperative for protest movements to “bait” governments into responding disproportionately, in order to attract the attention of the “great and the good” and the global mass media. Only escalating violence forced the global community’s clumsy fist to swing in Libya, and sadly it appears that only comparatively violent escalations in places such as Bahrain and Syria are likely to provoke serious, co-ordinated global responses there.

It is a paradox that in the largely peaceful, meticulously ordered societies most of us live in today, individual acts of violence are proving to be as effective a tool for attracting attention as they have ever been. Perhaps in retrospect, following 9/11 and the culmination of a decade-long international obsession with Osama bin Laden, this really shouldn’t be a surprise to any of us.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Tags: ,
Posted in Media, TV, democracy | No Comments »

The alternative vote (AV) referendum

Monday, May 9th, 2011

Here in the United Kingdom the nation is waking up on Thursday May 5th, the day of the alternate vote (AV) referendum and some would say, judgment day for the political career of the Liberal Democrat Deputy PM Nick Clegg. The referendum was arguably the most politically important concession extracted by the Lib Dems from David Cameron’s Conservatives as part of their coalition agreement. Victory for “Yes” case proponents will deliver meaningful and overdue electoral reform, together with a substantive apologia to the British people for the oft craven capitulation of the Lib Dems to the Tory policy agenda. Victory for “No” case proponents will leave many Liberal Democrat supporters baffled as to just how their party has profited from their “deal with the devil”, and progressives more pessimistic than ever about serious democratic reform in the United Kingdom.

Recent polling strongly suggests that the latter scenario will come to pass, with likely serious implications for the health of the coalition agreement and Nick Clegg’s already comatose leadership. The “No” campaign has been heavily backed politically by the Conservative Party and financially by regular Tory donors, and the Labour Party is offering only partial support. The Labour leadership under Ed Miliband supports the “Yes” case, but many influential “Old Labour” figures have sided with the Tories and are urging a “No” vote. In short, the lack of broad, bi-partisan support for change which arguably killed off the majority of referenda put to the Australian people since Federation looks set to do the same for the alternative vote in the United Kingdom today.

For me, the AV campaign was summed up by a single image yesterday. The Conservative Party’s headquarters is located at Millbank Tower at 30 Millbank, a short, languorous stroll south from the House of Parliament in Westminster. Walking past it on my way home from work yesterday, I was a little surprised to observe outside a bright purple open-top double-decker bus, emblazoned with “No 2 AV” slogans. The open top of the bus was filled with a rabble of young Tories (presumably supplied by party HQ), waving signs emblazoned with checked boxes in support of FPTP, and making a cacophonous and indistinct noise. The bus proceeded to drive slowly up Millbank towards the Houses of Parliament, as the Tories onboard desperately tried to attract attention, cheering when the occasional passing motorist sounded their horn, whether in support or opposition.

Passers-by seemed to be scratching their heads. It was a classic case of sound and fury signifying nothing, wholly representative of the sort of meaningless froth and colour that looks set to seal victory for the “No” campaign, which lest we forget, has been orchestrated from go to whoa by the Conservative Party.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Posted in UK Politics, democracy | No Comments »

David Cameron hearts archaic voting systems

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

Over here in the United Kingdom, the creaking FPTP (First-Past-The-Post) system of voting still operates; voters in general elections are forced to nominate only their most-preferred candidate, a solitary smudge in a box. It’s easy to see how such a system can result in fairly undemocratic results in tussles between more than two serious candidates: as the number of serious candidates in a ballot increases, FPTP forces a serious division of the vote, ultimately delivering victory to candidates with potentially only a minority proportion of overall electoral support. It is a system that decisively favours larger, more-established parties at the expense of smaller ones, and it is not surprising in this context that the Liberal Democrats made electoral reform one of the cornerstones of their campaign in the May 2010 UK general election.

The begrudging promise of a referendum on the alternative vote or “AV” system of preferential voting reportedly sealed the Coalition deal for David Cameron’s Conservatives with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats in the election aftermath. The referendum, which is to be held on Thursday 5th May 2011 as a kind of royal wedding after-party for psephologists, will cast the two Coalition partners decisively against each other in what looks set to be an intriguing political tussle. From an Australian perspective it is particularly intriguing, because as the anointed international standard-bearers for preferential voting, Westminster-style, it looks like we will be stuck in the crossfire for the duration of the debate!

The first serious volleys were fired late last week, when Nick Clegg and David Cameron set out their opening arguments for voting for and against AV, respectively. David Cameron made special mention of the Australian example several times in his speech launching the “No” campaign. His approach? Never let a good argument get in the way of a good slur:

When it comes to our democracy, Britain shouldn’t have to settle for anyone’s second choice.

And this argument that no one really wants it, it’s as true abroad as it is at home.

Only three countries use AV for national elections: Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea.

In Australia, six in ten voters want to return to the system we have – first past the post.

This is both sleight of hand and an egregious slight; playing on the relative size and remoteness of all three countries mentioned, and slimily “hiding” Australia in passing between Fiji and PNG. What really are you saying about Fiji and Papua New Guinea, Prime Minister, by being so careful to mention them first, and last? They are the countries you want people to remember and associate with AV, aren’t they? I’d also be interested in hearing the basis for the “six in ten” figure mentioned. Does anybody seriously believe that there is any realistic popular support whatsoever for a regression back to FPTP in Australia?

The British Prime Minister also takes the time to explain why preferential voting is the reason for the relatively high number of safe seats in Australia (?) and furthermore, why it is to blame for “obliterating minor parties” down under. Evidently nobody told him about the rise and rise of the Greens, or the notable success of independents and minor parties in recent years, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

He goes on to trash Australia’s electoral system, calling out the fact that it took seventeen days for a government to be formed at the last federal poll, and noting that on voting day ”voters are lectured at polling stations by party apparatchiks with ‘How to Vote’ cards.”. I’m not necessarily a fan of “how-to-vote” shenanigans outside polling booths, but it is a nonsense to describe the process as “lecturing”; in practice, it is little more than froth and colour. It is also disingenuous of Cameron to spin the speed of confirming the last federal election result as indicative of what happens in preferential voting systems generally. September 2010 was hardly exemplary of recent federal election results in Australia – practically all of which were decided with brutal speed and on the night (indeed, called by Antony Green a few hours after the close of polls, quite frequently).

I’d like to think that the Prime Minister isn’t going to take this rubbishing of Australia’s electoral system lying down. She might start by making gentle mention of that most thoroughly democratic of British institutions, the House of Lords.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in European Politics, UK Politics, democracy | No Comments »

In defence of compulsory voting in Australia

Tuesday, October 12th, 2010

Compulsory voting is one of the more idiosyncratic features of democracy in Australia, enforced as it is at state and federal levels of government, as well as at local elections for all states and territories except South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. In “coercing” citizens to participate in the democratic process, Australia is somewhat unique; as a research paper published by the UK Electoral Commission in June 2006 [PDF] notes (p.21):

Australia is widely considered to be, and is often identified as, the leading example of an effectively functioning compulsory voting system with compulsory registration.

By far the most common criticism of Australia’s compulsory voting system relates to the coercive element; the fact that the state is forcing individual citizens to do something. In a twisted philosophical sense, one could even argue (as many hardline libertarians, cynics, and just plain lazy folks do) that Australian governments impinge the human rights of citizens by forcing them to participate in the democratic process. It is an ironic commentary on the bodypolitik down under. In the developing world during the last century, thousands or perhaps even millions of activists gave up their lives or livelihoods for democracy and the right to vote, to select the people who govern them. In contrast, in first world Australia, we are probably more likely to get organised and fight for the right not to vote; to not have a say. Or perhaps more realistically, to just switch off, tune out, and coalesce with the couch.

Peter Brent, the author of the excellent Mumble blog (now resident at The Australian) recently posted an alternative critique of compulsory voting, focusing on the negative implications our current system has for participation. Brent observes:

… fewer young people are enrolling. Many assume it’s something that’s done automatically by “the government” and are surprised to find they can’t vote.

At last month’s election some 370 thousand people tried to vote but couldn’t, mainly because they weren’t on the roll. And more (we don’t know how many) simply turned around and left the polling place upon finding they weren’t on the roll.

The argument goes, in essence, if both enrolment and voting were voluntary, young people and other slightly addle-brained, unenrolled folk who rocked up at a polling place on the day of the election could have their vote counted. Furthermore, the coercive element so distasteful to libertarians would be removed from the picture, and potentially a greater proportion of people who wanted to have their say, could do so.

It is a fair point to make, but let’s take a step back and remind ourselves of the reality of compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting in modern Australia. One would have to think that it is in the interests of a functioning democracy to maximise the number of people who involve themselves in the democratic process. A democracy where less people participate is, almost by definition, less legitimate then one where a greater proportion of people participate. Even considering the additional 370,000 people who theoretically could have cast their vote at the August 2010 election if enrolment was simplified and voluntary, it seems certain that this figure would be dwarfed by the likely millions of people who just wouldn’t bother turning up if they didn’t think they had to. Voter turnout in the UK at the 2010 general election was around 65%, and in the United States presidential election of 2008, around 61%. Contrast this to the 93% of enrolled voters who turned out for the August 2010 federal election in Australia. That’s not a reflection of the Australia’s fervour for democracy, sadly, that frankly laudable figure is a product of compulsory voting.

Secondly, squarely blaming compulsory voting and enrolment for our electoral system’s failings seems a bit wrong-footed. If there are indeed thousands of electors out there who were unaware that they had to be enrolled at their current address in order to vote, surely this is suggestive of a failure in electoral education or “ease of use”, as much as anything else. Technology-wise, clearly the AEC needs to allow people to directly update their enrolment online; this need has been underscored by GetUp’s legal victory just prior to the election. The bottom line is that the AEC should be granted the wherewithal by government to ensure that people know their democratic responsibilities. Where feasible, interdepartmental information (e.g. records of address changes) could be leveraged to assist this process, and to prompt people to ensure that their enrolment information is up to date.

Finally, let’s reconsider the “coercive” line of argument. Really, when it comes to the crunch, our system of compulsory enrolment and voting is not really very coercive at all. We’re not talking carrot and stick here; we’re talking carrot and wet noodle. One could even successfully argue that both enrolment and voting are effectively voluntary in Australia already. The fine for not voting federally is a not particularly catastrophic $20. People who decide to vote on the day but who do not want to support a particular candidate as a “protest” can vote informal if they so choose. For those who find it logistically difficult to vote on the actual election day, there are a myriad of excuses one can provide to the AEC in order to vote early or via the post. That are quite literally a barrel of ways to skin the coercion cat for those self-absorbed voters who are really interested in doing so.

Do we want a political system where more people have a say in who forms government, or one where less people have a say? Obviously its a rhetorical question, and to the extent that we can greater empower the AEC and government departments to help people exercise their democratic responsibilities, compulsory voting is not something we should be whinging about. The right not to participate in keeping democracy healthy in Australia is not a right people should be wasting valuable intellectual energy fighting for.

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized, democracy | 4 Comments »

When “being good” means cluttering your lapel

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Late last month, I gave some serious consideration to participating in Movember. I eventually decided against it, in part because my current residence in Melbourne meant that my circle of friends probably would not get as much humour (and perhaps by association, generate quite as many donations) out of my moustache-growing efforts. Perhaps next year. There can be little doubt that the organisers have done a terrific job in raising the public profile of men’s health in aid of beyondblue and the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. If you move within any social circles at all, you’re practically certain of knowing someone who is growing a mo this month, in aid of these two very worthy organisations.

Apart from the questionable implications for GMA (Gross Male Attractiveness), it’s hard to see how one can find fault with events like Movember, but Tim Soutphommasane presents an interesting critique in today’s Australian. The average modern charity event seems generally to revolve around a symbolic token of some sort, whether it be a pink (or white, or…) ribbon, a poppy, a red nose, a pair of jeans or indeed a ragged patch of hair on one’s upper lip. One generally wears these symbols with just a touch of conspicuous pride; I’ve done my little bit, see look at this symbol right here.

Soutphommasane does probably get a bit too broad in scope with his column for my liking, but the snippet below captures the essence of what I think is quite an important observation:

Support women’s health? Sport a pink ribbon. Support action on climate change? Turn off your lights at home for an hour. Support recycling? You were in luck last week, which just happened to be National Recycling Week.

…

For all that moral grandstanding makes us feel virtuous, it in fact makes civic virtue rather more elusive. If only good citizenship were as easy as growing a moustache or wearing a pink ribbon.

We are all aware today that public identification with our democracy, as measured by involvement with political parties and our level of respect for politicians, is perhaps at an all-time low. On the other hand, it does appear that token-oriented charitable “days” or events could well be at an all-time high today, at least in terms of frequency. Given the current situation with our democracy, shouldn’t we be concerned that we may be tricking ourselves into feeling that we are “doing our little bit” for society by growing facial hair, and buying ribbons and poppies and red noses, instead of involving ourselves in more seriously in public/civic life, or making more substantive sacrifices for the occasional good cause?

I’m not trying to be a killjoy. These causes all do a great job in terms of raising awareness and money for important causes: this cannot be denied. I think we probably all need to be reminded, however, that being a truly good citizen – a good Australian – should require that we do much more than cover our lapel with conspicuous (but cheap, and labour unintensive) tokens of our virtue. On the scale of worthy patriotic acts, buying a token in aid of charity is, let’s face it, a worthy, but modest, tick in a box. Contrastingly, some of our forebears and a sprinkling of modern champions have moved or are moving mountains for this country, or at the very least, trying to make a real difference. Whilst not forgetting for a moment our current servicemen and women, millions of our forebears bore arms in defence of and in solidarity with our country last century. In the 21st century, we tend to buy trinkets for our country; oh, and rock up to vote periodically.

So, why aren’t we all striving to do better?

Tags: ,
Posted in democracy | No Comments »

Electoral Reform Green Paper – Strengthening Australia’s Democracy

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

As previously mentioned, the government has released a second Electoral Reform Green Paper for public comment. Chapter 15 of the document lists out a series of eighty issues in the form of questions that the government is inviting responses to in particular from the republic. The state of our democracy is a particular bugbear topic for me, so I have this evening managed to finally get my act together and complete my submission, focusing on 19 of the questions raised.

Public submissions are open for just over three more weeks until Friday 27th November 2009. An online discussion on the document will be held from next Monday 9th November 2009 until Friday 13th November 2009.

My submission in all its unadulterated prolixity is over the fold.

(more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Australian Constitution, Rudd Labor Government, democracy | No Comments »

Electoral reform, green papers, consultation

Friday, September 25th, 2009

The Rudd Government has just released a second so-called “green paper” on electoral reform, entitled Strengthening Australia’s Democracy [PDF/DOC/RTF]. Public submissions on the weighty document, which runs to a meaty 251 pages, are open until Friday 27th November 2009, and an online discussion on the document will be held from Monday 9th November 2009 until Friday 13th November 2009.

Personally I think it is very good that the federal government is taking an interest in matters concerning Australia’s democracy. I have not had a chance to take the document in as yet, but will certainly endeavour to do so and to make a submission. The book I am currently trying (failing?) to write is squarely focused on the health of Australia’s democracy in the twenty-first century, so this green paper should certainly prove topical.

It is a little disheartening that this document is so difficult to engage with. All Australians have a stake in the health of their electoral system, but it’s a fair bet that very, very, very few value their stake to such an extent that they will be willing to digest a dry, book-sized document and to make a contribution to the associated consultation process over the next couple of months. The online discussion forum scheduled for early November is a reasonable idea, but there is only so much that a week-long online discussion forum can do. Once again the participants are almost certainly going to be that fraction of a percent of the population who have a strong or vested interest in electoral reform.

What are some other ways that the federal government could engage? Let’s just kick around a few ideas here. The government could post out a succinct survey that asks questions on the gist of the green paper to 10,000 households, and invite participants to both respond to the survey and to participate in a conference on the topic. Engage programs like Insight and Q&A to host shows specifically focusing on the content of the green paper. Offer financial rewards for meaningful contributions by members of the public. Work with high schools and universities to make formulation of a response to the green paper a mandatory part of the syllabus, or a “bonus” task for bright sparks trying to go above and beyond.

More than ever, we need better, more incentivised methods of encouraging people to participate in their democracy. We don’t need to talk about rocket science here. We just need to talk to people about their democracy in a way in which they can relate, and just as importantly, respond.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Rudd Labor Government, democracy | 1 Comment »

Bigger carrots needed for a stagnating democracy

Monday, August 31st, 2009

The question of whether or not we pay our politicians enough in Australia has been asked and re-asked so many times in recent years that it has practically become a cliche. Like all good cliches, this one made the Sunday papers yesterday, courtesy of a column from Melissa Fyfe. It would all be a bit ho-hum really, except for the fact that the point Fyfe is making is still a damn good one.

Despite all the questions asked about how much we pay our pollies, I don’t think we have seen any conclusive answers emerge about whether we pay them enough. This is no doubt partially because the issue is a divisive one indeed. Those who view politicians in a generally negative light – perhaps the majority of the population on a bad day – are for obvious reasons reluctant to consider the possibility that we should be paying our pollies more. Every news story that emerges about the admittedly quite considerable allowances our members of parliament also serves to reinforce the perception that politics is all about snouts being neck-deep in the trough, first and foremost. When one considers all the issues of the day and the possible measures that public money could be spent on, the dire financial situation that our politicians supposedly find themselves in is certainly quite a way down the priority list, if indeed it represents an issue at all.

For me, it really is quite simple. Do we value the health of our democracy? Yes. Should we be interested in increasing the size of the talent pool and competition for preselections? Yes. Would our democracy be better if more people were involved or interested in becoming involved? Yes. Do the benefits that the average politician receives really weigh up against the considerable costs they incur, such as having effectively a 365-days a year x 24-hour job, sacrificing family time, and enduring media scrutiny on a day-in day-out basis? Frankly, it is difficult to see how this could be the case.

If we want the best to run our country, perhaps its time to consider paying members of parliament a salary that is genuinely competitive in today’s global job marketplace and commensurate with the responsibility that public life entails. We don’t pay our politicians peanuts right now – certainly in comparison with the average wage – but we should be looking to pay our politicians whatever reasonable amount of money that will most effectively encourage people to engage in our democracy. The alternative does little but limit the size of the talent pool available to serve the nation, and ensures that many of our best and brightest remain ensconced in the private sector, selling off their brilliance for the sake of a decent life.

Tags: ,
Posted in democracy | 4 Comments »