Danceswithwordsdo we have democracy in australia?
December 1st 2006 08:25
According to Robert Dahl, one of the main ideological pioneers of modern democracy and liberty, there are certain characteristics a state must possess in order to be considered democratic. Unfortunately, we in Australia don’t bear many of the necessary hallmarks of a free, egalitarian state. We don’t have a free and diverse press, reporters sans frontiers (without borders) place Australia 35th in the world in terms of press freedom (and we are due to slide even further when the new amendments to foreign and cross ownership laws come into effect). We have meagre restrictions on the separation of powers with one coalition currently controlling both the executive and the legislature (and choosing the judicial representatives). We have commercial in confidence legislation which means that corporate manoeuvrings are opaque and consequently render most corporate enterprises unaccountable. Our entire working structure has been reformed to deprive employees of rights, laws which revert back to the old soviet system of command and control. Through the fear of terrorism, we have relatively new laws that enable federal and state police to detain people guilty of the “heinous crime of sedition”. We have long since lost the positive liberties that were once the hallmark of Australian capitalism, and now the negative liberties that prevented government and business from intruding and exerting control are slowly eroding away also. These are just a few of the issues that expose the descent into authoritarianism in Australia. Do not get me wrong, we are a long way from Marcos, Franco or Mussolini, but we are also a long way from true democracy.
There are no enshrined rights of free speech in this country, our constitution does not preserve the essential civil liberties of the individual. Because of our status as a constitutional monarchy, we do not possess a bill of rights that would guarantee us the freedoms that other countries entitle their populace to. This was exposed quite noticeably on Thursday the 15th of September last year when the federal government in conjunction with ASIO detained and then deported Houston based environmental and peace activist Scott Parkin, utilising the recent anti-terrorism legislation it passed through the senate. Parkin was over in Australia on a six month visa to attend the Forbes protest in Sydney, to object to the corporate profiteering in Iraq by companies such as Halliburton and to instruct local activists from New South Wales and Melbourne in methods of peaceful remonstration via civil disobedience workshops. According to foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer, Parkin was “a threat to national security” and despite the fact that the Houston based activist was not charged for his behaviour at the Forbes conference, an ASIO spokesman asserted that the peace activist “could possibly increase violence at political protests and endanger riot police.” Parkin of course, was not legally permitted to defend himself against the groundless character accusations and was consequently exiled under the new terrorism laws. Other alarming examples of the Australian government waging a war on individual freedom of expression include raids on publishers and radio stations, the racial profiling and detention of an Arab student studying politics, censorship of books and websites that are critical of the Howard and Bush administrations, the imposition of new restrictive, editorial practises at media institutions like the ABC and SBS, and the promotion of a simplistic, generalised, us vs them mentality that enforces attitudes of racism and bigotry.
These acts by the government has grievous implications when one considers that according to Bernard Crick, a famous English political scientist and sociologist, democracy is the act of conciliating differences underneath a common law which is based on legal rational and legitimate authority. John Howard’s coalition is clearly violating people’s rights to dispute his party’s policy and neoliberal agenda. Promoting dialogue between opposing groups or citizens with varying ideologies or principles is an intrinsic role of the government in a legitimate democracy. The incumbent coalition has repeatedly failed to do so throughout its time in office. It has failed in its responsibilities and its failed its constituents. The question has to be what are we as responsible citizens going to do about it? Are you content to watch the Howard government continually erode our rights, civil liberties and choices? If you’re not, is it enough to vote for a different government? (keeping in mind that Beazley and labour, and also bob brown and the greens have supported many of the afore-mentioned policies)…or do we have to replace what we have now with something new, if so what should we replace it with and how should we do it?
There are no enshrined rights of free speech in this country, our constitution does not preserve the essential civil liberties of the individual. Because of our status as a constitutional monarchy, we do not possess a bill of rights that would guarantee us the freedoms that other countries entitle their populace to. This was exposed quite noticeably on Thursday the 15th of September last year when the federal government in conjunction with ASIO detained and then deported Houston based environmental and peace activist Scott Parkin, utilising the recent anti-terrorism legislation it passed through the senate. Parkin was over in Australia on a six month visa to attend the Forbes protest in Sydney, to object to the corporate profiteering in Iraq by companies such as Halliburton and to instruct local activists from New South Wales and Melbourne in methods of peaceful remonstration via civil disobedience workshops. According to foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer, Parkin was “a threat to national security” and despite the fact that the Houston based activist was not charged for his behaviour at the Forbes conference, an ASIO spokesman asserted that the peace activist “could possibly increase violence at political protests and endanger riot police.” Parkin of course, was not legally permitted to defend himself against the groundless character accusations and was consequently exiled under the new terrorism laws. Other alarming examples of the Australian government waging a war on individual freedom of expression include raids on publishers and radio stations, the racial profiling and detention of an Arab student studying politics, censorship of books and websites that are critical of the Howard and Bush administrations, the imposition of new restrictive, editorial practises at media institutions like the ABC and SBS, and the promotion of a simplistic, generalised, us vs them mentality that enforces attitudes of racism and bigotry.
These acts by the government has grievous implications when one considers that according to Bernard Crick, a famous English political scientist and sociologist, democracy is the act of conciliating differences underneath a common law which is based on legal rational and legitimate authority. John Howard’s coalition is clearly violating people’s rights to dispute his party’s policy and neoliberal agenda. Promoting dialogue between opposing groups or citizens with varying ideologies or principles is an intrinsic role of the government in a legitimate democracy. The incumbent coalition has repeatedly failed to do so throughout its time in office. It has failed in its responsibilities and its failed its constituents. The question has to be what are we as responsible citizens going to do about it? Are you content to watch the Howard government continually erode our rights, civil liberties and choices? If you’re not, is it enough to vote for a different government? (keeping in mind that Beazley and labour, and also bob brown and the greens have supported many of the afore-mentioned policies)…or do we have to replace what we have now with something new, if so what should we replace it with and how should we do it?
| 117 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by From The Depths
Evading Sanity
This was the first I heard that Australia doesn't have civil rights built into the constitution. I am suprised to here that.
Comment by ChrisM
yeah, the tyranny of the majority has always been a rather large problem for democracy, some believe though that the general populace is a reflection of societal, governmental and cultural institutions etc though, so if we make those structures freer, more inclusive etc etc, it will apparently transform the ideals of the larger population.
its funny that you mention that process actually, because theoretically, it is supposed to be the opposite. to start off with, the new government is forced to impose the new ideas, structures and laws...and then over time, as people adjust and assimilate ideologically, those things become more accepted and the government not so totalitarian. but i see your point because that does seem to happen both historically and in current society.