The interestingly timed airing of Professor Keane's self promotion and ranting on ABC 24 today was a bit inspirational, to say the least.  I have some criticisms and this is as good as an excuse as any to air them.

First of all, as some one trained in real science,  I question the term "political science".  I don't think the field has ever used the experimental method. Like sociology, it is heavily interpretative and theories are reliant on a subjective slant on poorly developed statistics and historical data.  It often uses big words and verbosity that don't seem to have any substantial meaning, or even if there is good reason for using it, the definition varies considerably in one thesis let alone across the writings of the entire field. In this respect,  politics, like sociology, is one big rant after another, and so called political scientists are just an academic level commentariat that abuse mathematics and rehash sociohistoric data to spin reality into some kind of verbose heap of garbage.  Opinion polls are one example of the mathematics that are abused by the commentariat, both at the academic and media levels.

Now that I've officially pissed off half my friends, and the academics that taught my sub major, it's time to continue my rant and direct it squarely at democracy. I've already implied that because sociology/politics/histiry is unscientific and biased that if I'm using it I'm going to likewise be unscientific and bias. This would be correct, so I'm not going to pretend that my interpretation is the only one.

If I heard rightly, Prof. Keane pointed out that there were three phases of democracy - the ancient greek version, then democracy by election, then since 1945 monetary democracy. He also claimed that the American civil war was about two versions of democracy (democracy with slavery - the greek one) and representative democracy (or by election - the winning version).  Whilst I can see his logic, and he was honest enough to point out that the definition of democracy changed, he was wrong on a number of points.

First of all, classifying ancient Greece into one big historical lump is inaccurate. Like all of the ancient worlds, they had multiple eras, which happened to have different social/political/economic structures, and different regional influences.  In this way, there might be considered the Spartan era Greece, which was different from the Hellenic era Greece, which was different again from the Egyptian Greece and the Roman Greece, put very loosely. What characterised Greece in all these periods was that, a bit like Babylon vs. Egypt, it was an intellectual storehouse that skilled up the Empires that it allied with or was overtaken by.  Think of the influence of Spartan military culture on Greece, then how this inflected itself upon the Romans, who went on to become a massive empire using this culture.

In these eras of Greece, democracy was not always what they practiced - not even by their own definitions. Plato's Republic appears to point out about 5 different political structures and either a real or imagined philosophical debate about the pros and cons of these. My assumption would be that it is quite plausible that each of these structures had existed in the relatively recent history of Plato, and he was chucking a bit of a Marx by levying criticism upon them.  What seems to be the definition of democracy in ancient Greece (as far as I can tell - and this isn't from the Republic, and I agree wtih Keane) that men would enter the town square every week or so, give speeches and raise their hands.  Who these men were are important -  they were all self employed or members of the academy or military.

That's what the definition of slavery was in ancient Greece - it wasn't just "someone steals you from Africa and makes you do hard labor"  like in the US - it was more generally not having your own workshop, store or farm.  Anyone who did not have property or did not work for themselves was a slave.  It was that simple. In fact, the enfranchisement of propetied men alone, in ancient Greece, puts their definition of democracy closer to the post US civil war and Australian practices of enfranchisement in the late 1800s - when how much land you owned counted as a vote, and you had to be male.  Which means that Keane, when he says that the "non slavery" or un-Greek version of democracy won, is utterly wrong.

In the early 1900s, when Australia was first federated, this "propetied" method of voting was the case, and it wasn't extended to non land owners (read - Ancient Greek definition of slave) until if I recall rightly - the 1920s.  Women did not get the vote until later.  Indigenous people were not put on the census - let alone voting rights that followed - until 1969.  In short, Australia did not have universal enfranchisement until the 1970s -  which is already in the period he calls "monetary democracy".

Monetary democracy is itself an interesting term. If he's referring to a states focus on budgets and the economy, and the evolving welfare state, 1945 is a pretty good starting point, although the principles of welfare statism are probably more post world war one. Initiatives like universal or state based education predate 1945, for example. And so do the beginnings of state based hospitals. Both of these evolved out of private initiatives begun by nuns, mostly - in Australian education, Mary MacKillop, and international health - Florence Nightingale. It's the difference between academic (oligarchical) science/medicine, and proletariat/religious based nursing, in the case of Nightingale. Not to say that for millenia previous, Western medicine hadn't been influenced by secular and non Christian sciences and women -  there has been some amazing ideas developed through the Arab renaissance (400 years prior to the European one), and especially how this goes back to the work of the ancient Greek academies and the Egyptian and Roman empires.

However, the actual root definition of democracy "demos / masses + cracy / rule"  has probably never been truly applied.  Limited enfranchisement in ancient Greece, no enfranchisement until after the age of reason, and then limited enfranchisement again till the 1970s - but this time, only representational.  The people or masses do not rule at all. Rather, we just vote. And in the case of Australia,  technically speaking, this is the only democractic practice we have.  Because the actual national defintion of Australia is that it is a constitutional monarchy with oligarchy by compulsory election.  In short, we are democratic only because we decide between overlords, who are in turn, (however symbolically in practice) ruled by the Queen of another land.

In the case of the US, despite being a republic with an independant consitution, they too are an oligarchy.  Voting may be voluntary and enfranchisement universal (unless you're an illegal migrant or felon)  but they typically have a very unaccessible polity with (from what mates in the US tell me) elections held on Tuesdays to ensure low voter turnout.  So the level of political involvement is dominated by vested corporate interests in the media, and essentially, a war between two parties to elect a dictator who only answers to congress, or at least did until George W Bush declared he didn't have to. Some democracy there.

Yet Keane pointed out the rise of non media critical groups in the age of monetary democracy (1945 till now). Groups like GetUp!  who are not political parties or government departments dealing with corruption and anti-competitve behaviour, for example.  There appears to be an implicit assumption that the media was ever a critical force against the polity.  Perhaps during the early days of the printing press when the parliamentarians (proto capitalists) warred against the monarchs.  But since then the media, and not just in the US, has become monopolisd or reduced in competition with heavy vested corporate interests, and the lobbying of various groups with vested interests, such as political parties, the military, corporations and religious groups. What we've seen in the last 20 to 30 years has basically been an increase in parroting of press releases and the opinion pieces of editors and "journalists"  that are hired if they conform with the political stance of the owners.  Not much for editorial ethics or criticism at large, but rather, a mouthpiece for campaigning. 

So what we have now is the internet, which, if your socioeconomic background allows,  affords the masses the opportunity to access the most groundbreaking resource since the Great Library of Alexandria. It is one of the great wonders of the technological age, ironically invented by the US military, but nonetheless capable of empowering the people through alternative sources of information. In doing so, the bipartisan system in many Westminster systems, like Australia, have been threatened. We're coming to realise that neither option, or the option of just two, is sufficient. So this, I hope, is something Keane realised when he said [sic] "power concentrated into too few hands is always a problem".   Australia voted accordingly on the 21st August, and the media isn't happy. The oligarchy of the major parties is challenged, and likewise, so is ABC versus News Ltd.

What's being promoted is oligarchy, but through the alleged oligarchy of the independents.  These independants have too much power, they say, and we need a "stable" (read - dictated) goverment with a major party selected. Granted, if they were the only ones who could vote in parliament - but they're not. Parliament is made up of 150 elected representatives, and likewise, it's policies can be criticised by the senate.  There is absolutely no evidence that a system of independants cannot produce good policy outcomes and a functional parliament. Indeed, that's the real difference between what we have now and what the fight was about in the US. The founding fathers wanted a system of independants, and the polity wanted to concentrate on issues through a party based system.  Like with the early French parliament, the left (people first) and right (property first) evolved into party structures so that particular politicans and their issues could dominate - and not the current needs of the people or the nation at large.  Politicians ever since have represented a platform of ideology and vested interests and NOT the people.  No surprise there that the three independants left the party system and claimed to be a "voice of [their] people".

If the entire parliament was made of independants, or a limit of or or two seats per party/issue, we'd get better representation on issues and most importantly, electorates. It will never be perfect because the process of becoming an elected representative in our current socioeconomic system is naturally corrupting.  But with a party dominated central executive that isn't even constitutionally specified, and mostly bitching from opposition, I would hardly argue that policy and law is even debated, let alone properly. It's been a disaster for the people, and it's got to stop.

So when someone like Oakeshott or the others are saying things like - consider reform, consider options other than a minority government - they're not crazy. They're making a lot of sense, actually, and if we want an actual "representative democracy" to exist, this is one way to go about it. However, even if we perfect representative democracy,  it's not true, gritty democracy in the strictest sense of the term. Participatory democracy is much closer. But closest still is anarchy.

The Official Secretary to the Governor-General, Mr Stephen Brady, has stated today that the Governor-General had received advice from the Solicitor-General of Australia, Mr Stephen Gageler, SC, in relation to Her Excellency’s personal position in the current political circumstances.

Mr Brady said the Governor-General had sought the Solicitor-General’s advice on Monday, 23 August.

“In the interests of transparency, the Governor-General has decided to make both her letter to the Solicitor-General, and his advice publicly available”, Mr Brady said.

You can read the letter and the advice below.

Click here to download:

SG_Letter_26_8_2010.pdf (106 KB)

Click here to download:

QB_Letter_23_8_2010.pdf (26 KB)

Firstly, I'd like to thank Peter Black for starting this blog and inviting us all to be a part of it. An open society with the opportunity for people to discuss their perspectives leads to progress and this should absolutely be encouraged. To that end, I've also enjoyed the articles and commentary by all the other contributors and commentators, thank you for your efforts as well.  I think this blog has been successful. It was a great idea from the beginning and we've been a part of that during an historic election, pretty neat, huh?

I've personally enjoyed being a part of this blog, and it's been interesting psychologically (and politically) using my real name and some ranting.  What I've learnt is that with politics, in my life, I've been very disgruntled and taken things from a disenfranchised, aggressive and cyncial stance.  This particular election, and being part of this blog, has had a strong impact on how I see the world of politics. I'm still cynical, I strongly believe that much needs to change, and I believe that being a voice of dissent and criticism is absolutely neccessary. However, for the first time, I feel like my vote might actually have counted, and I'm kicking myself for not having been enrolled in time.  So watch this space, a non voter, who abstained for many reasons, is about to re enroll.  I've changed.

Now, that's purely anecdotal, but I like to see myself as part of a bigger universe. If this has changed me, what has it done for other people?  Have we educated people about the diversity of opinions, the importance of listening to others (and not just lobby groups)? The importance of having a vision, of considering the possibilities, of moving forward as something other than rhetoric?  Have we encouraged a non-partisan, evidence and logic based approach to politics, policy and social change?  As a society, are we developing a sensible approach to the future?  Or are we stuck in the same, outdated, ineffective, agenda-and-reaction based modes of thinking?

We need to encourage people to think for themselves. To be a voice against propaganda, a voice in favour of facts, not agendas.  We need to respect the diversity of our culture and our people, but we also need to balance this out realistically.  The world should be run on the best ideas and the facts, not on ideology.  I support progressive agendas because progressive thinking should allow for the diversity of opinions/ideas that lead to things like science and reason, which lead to things like, universal health care, education, and putting people on the moon.  But a realisitic critique of any idea is neccessary, and being stuck on this false left/right divide, in bipartisan oriented system, has lead to reactionary policy, voter disaffection, and potentially, is a factor in the demise of our entire species.

So it's time to move forward - and actually develop a philosophy - a third, fourth, or even fifth path - to develop as a people.

I see the people of this blog, and indeed, the many people I've encountered in my non-traditional and traditional activism, of all political stripes, as part of these developing and emerging ideas.  I'm not interested in party hacks, as these people have been bought, and in some cases, got so caught up in the protectionist/reactionary agenda that they've forgotten to be critical of everything and not just the other team.  I'm interested in the people who have joined activism because they want to make a difference and have ideas on how to do that. Some of these people belong to a political party, some of these people are scientists, lawyers and professionals of other inclinations, some are religious, some are secular, some are gay, some are straight.  Some are from the wealthy elite and some are from the poorest parts of the world.  Some read Satre, some Women's Weekly.

We're all on the same team, really, it's just that some of us have different methods and interests. Let's put ALL of us together, and work together. We all have something of value to contribute.

However, I think the way we've strucured our political system, media, education and a bunch of other things has meant that we've divided ourselves and each other from achieving this end.  And in developing this future path, we need to discuss what reforms we may need to may in order to achieve that goal. The one advantage we have, for the time being, is the internet.

For this purpose, I think we should create a new blog. One with Peter, who is a law professor, with me, a social scientist. With the other people from this blog who represent various skills and experience. With people from the Secular/Humanist society, the Australia Institute, the unions, the social workers, the business organisations, religious groups, gay rights groups, the works.

Equal discussion with only one agenda:  to put aside our agendas and focus on the facts in order to develop a path.

It's idealistic, I know. But I hope we'll at least give it a go.

And now I give the floor to you.

This blog was set up to cover the politics, policy and prognosticating of the 2010 federal election.  The election is now over and although we don't yet know who will form government, it is only a matter of time before we do.  And so I've started to think about what I want to do with this blog.

I was very happy with the role this blog played throughout the election campaign - there were usually several posts a day from a wide range of contributors all across the political spectrum.  Not only were the posts many and varied, most were thoughtful and made an original and positive contribution to the election blogosphere.  

The question for me now is whether I should shut blog down or keep it up going in some form (either way I will continue to archive the posts to date and keep them online).  If it was to keep going I would be keen to have it continue is a group blog on Australian politics.  That really depends upon there enough contributors who would still like to blog for it now and again, and whether people would continue to read it.  

So let me know what you think.  Should this blog continue?  Should I shut it down?  Would you be interested in writing for or reading this blog?  

Yesterday I had a piece published on The Drum about the Constitution and a hung Parliament:

From around 10pm on Saturday night, political wonks and tragics, as well campaign staffers and journalists alike, dusted off their copy of the Constitution (or simply downloaded the iPhone app - yes there really is an app for that) to see what, if any guidance, it gave about would happen in the event of a hung Parliament.

All of a sudden Twitter became rife with self-taught constitutional law experts, proclaiming that the Queen will decide who forms Australia's next Government (she won't) and that Wyatt Roy isn't qualified to be a Member of Parliament (he is).

What did become apparent to everyone who desperately started flicking through the Constitution is that it doesn't explicitly set out what happens in the event of a hung Parliament. Indeed, some observed that the Constitution doesn't even mention the existence of the Prime Minister.

While both of these facts may seem confusing or even troubling to many, those more familiar with the peculiarities of our constitutional system know that there are unwritten conventions that underpin the day-to-day operation of the Constitution.

It is those constitutional conventions that will govern what happens next, as both Labor and the Coalition begin the process of trying to form the next Government of Australia.

Read the rest here.

Accountability. Apparently The Greens don't have it. Or at least this is the message that could be taken from the ABC's Q and A program which aired last night. When Sarah Hanson-Young was asked whether The Greens would finally be accountable for its policies given its unprecedented election success there was a substantial amount of audience applause. Or at least enough applause to rile me a little.

Implied by the questioner was the view that The Greens are an unaccountable mob. And implied in the question and applause was a probably widely held view that The Greens is a party of irresponsible nutters that make policy on the fly.

There was a stereotype and the question played right into it. And, in doing so, sought to confirm the stereotype rather than allow for it to be dispelled. The question being more important than the answer.

Much cheer and applause at the theatre comes from strong archetypical characters doing things we've come to expect but which we still find highly entertaining. So it is for the theatre of politics.

Except, how exactly is it that The Greens haven't been accountable? Because they haven't been invited on Rove? Because Kochie has yet to do the Kokoda Trail with Bob Brown? Puh-lease! Give. Me. A. Break.

If people want to read The Greens' policies they can get them on the website. If people have questions on those policies then they can send off an email and ask.

I'm certain that The Greens MPs are more than willing to discuss their policies. I'm sure they'd love it if more people asked and I'm sure they'd love to be invited to #rooty and #rootyq to field questions from Janet Albrechtsen's "real people".

The plain and obvious truth is that The Greens are not provided the same platform as the majors. This is, of course, entirely explainable given the party is unlikely to form a government of their own. But seriously? To blame The Greens for not being accountable is like blaming the people you don't like for being unsociable even though you've never bothered to invite them to your get-togethers.

I know that, for the most part, many of the people I don't invite to my social gatherings are not invited because of who and what I might think they are even though I probably haven't really talked with most of them. Prejudiced? Sure, you bet. But the stakes are low.

The future of our country, however, is a high stakes game. Fair enough that someone doesn't care to follow-up on The Greens' policies. Some of us already have desires for the future of the nation and don't feel the need to canvas for new and different ideas. But just because I don't canvas for new ideas doesn't mean that people whom hold them aren’t willing and able to let me know all about them.

It's not good enough to hold my hands over my ears all the while proclaiming how quiet and how unaccountable the views of the person trying to talk to me are.