Democracy - Australian Style

Pic courtesy Quora

One of my oldest habits pre-elections (and a federal election is due pretty soon) is to examine the posted policies of the various parties. This process goes some way towards informing the decisions I make in the ballot box.

My readings took me the other day to the website of the Liberal Democratic Party.

They produce a document called the Freedom Manifesto. I'll admit some discomfort in the use of the word "manifesto". It has some unfortunate historic connotations. 

Be that as it may, their manifesto contains two features which are in utter contradiction. They simultaneously advocate voluntary voting and recall elections. Any party that devalues democratic participation on the one hand, and on the other insists that elections be held as a consequence of democratic participation through a minority petition for a recall is a very strange beast indeed.

There is some consistency in this, I guess, in that both these exercises of political power allow a minority to force its will on the majority. 

Which brings me to a discussion about the validity and effectiveness of compulsory voting, as it operates in this country. Compulsory voting operates in a small minority of democracies. The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index lists Australia as 8th in the list of 23 "full democracies". 

The USA, by the way, is classified by the EIU as a "flawed democracy", which is more than a little ironic, given the lip service most Americans offer to the notion of freedom. But it is consistent when you consider that these same US citizens are often at pains to point out that their country is a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy.

But I digress....

Of the 23 "full democracies"in the EIU classification, only Australia, Luxembourg and Uruguay have compulsory voting. If you dig a little deeper, however and examine the EIU's measure of participation, you will note a clear correlation between full democracies and participation. 

On the other hand, the EIU's classification of "authoritarian" regimes, consistently reports for these countries a participation score below 5. Australia rates 7.78. 

The US, classified as a "flawed democracy", has encountered, according to the EIU -

many negatives including extremely low levels of trust in institutions and political parties, deep dysfunction in the functioning of government, increasing threats to freedom of expression, and a degree of societal polarisation that makes consensus almost impossible to achieve. Social cohesion has collapsed, and consensus has evaporated on fundamental issues—even the date of the country’s founding. 

Whilst we have our problems on this side of the Pacific, they pale in comparison to what is happening in the USA right now. Much of what ails them is self-inflicted, and their rag-tag electoral system is fundamental to their malaise.

Taken together in this country, the combination of compulsory voting, a well-organised electoral system (including fair boundary setting, and an efficiently functioning non-partisan electoral commission) as well as excellent access to polling stations, has contributed to Australia's standing as a democracy.

One of the worst features of a non-compulsory system is the push to energise your base to the exclusion of all other voters. On the other hand, when voting is compulsory, elections are decided by swing voters and won at the centre. This removes the power of extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. Observe the USA and its polarisation if you are looking for evidence of this phenomenon. 

All of which makes the LDP's platform difficult to comprehend, unless you understand that any diminution in voter participation marks a trend towards authoritarianism, as becomes clear when you read the EIU's full report.

What is even more bizarre is the cliched criticism by these ersatz libertarians of "elites" whom they accuse of holding all the power, whilst at the same time, insisting that ensuring everyone gets to vote opens the floodgates to people who are incapable of rational decision-making. Essentially, it's the same mindset that drives voter suppression in the USA at the moment.

They believe that the voters aren't electing the right people, after all, and that can't be allowed to continue. With a wink and a nod, they're saying "we can't let these bogans near a ballot box".

It's totalitarianism masquarading as "freedom", and is probably the greatest threat to a secure and peaceful future in this country. 

Look East, and weep....

Goodies and Baddies

If you pay attention to most western media sources when it comes to the situation in the Ukraine and Crimea, the issues seem clear-cut.

They're not, as this video makes clear.

The conventional narrative covers an aggressive Russian military buildup following the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the likelihood of an invasion, and the response of the Europeans, NATO, the UK and the USA to that possibility. Even our government has become involved.

There's no question that Putin is a thug who runs a corrupt and authoritarian regime, but that is not the issue when it comes to the future of the Ukraine.

If you cast your mind back, gentle reader, to the events of November 1962, you may remember, if you were around at that time, the Cuban missile crisis. I was, and I do remember it. For about a fortnight, the world held its breath.

The USA, not unreasonably, took exception to the stationing of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, in Cuba, less than 660kms from Florida. Fortunately for world peace, and following several tense negotiations, an agreement was reached between Kennedy and Khrushchev. 

Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United nations supervision. Secretly, the Jupiter MRBMs which had been deployed by NATO in Turkey against the Soviet Union would be removed. This second part of the agreement was kept secret to avoid political complications stateside.

The current situation, from the Russian point of view, is similar, but reversed. The possibility that a western leaning Ukraine will join NATO, and base offensive capability (especially missiles) on its soil, bordering the Russian Federation, is more than Putin can bear (excuse the pun). 

This makes the current posture held by the US appear more than a little hypocritical. 

The potential bloodbath that would arise through a Russian military invasion doesn't bear thinking about. Thousands have already been killed, and when Malaysian Airlines flight 17 was shot down in July 2014 by a Russian missile, thirty-eight of the casualties were Australians.

So what is the solution? Ukraine is a nation divided, so any peaceful resolution arrived at by that country itself appears unlikely. 

Look at a map. Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, so maybe if Russia, the UK, and the USA butt out, and leave it to some body derived from the European Union to slowly and carefully resolve the issues, war may be avoidable.

Wasn't it Winston Churchill who first publicly advocated for a European Union? And didn't he offer the avoidance of bloodshed as the primary reason? He called it The United States of Europe.

It's more than a little ironic that the British have withdrawn from that union, but still demand a place at the table when it comes to issues of European security.