Foundation for National Renewal     The "Model Constitution" Activity

Federal Election October 2004: Which Candidates Trust the People?

This is a busy time of the year for most people, so the Task for this month will be a very simple, straightforward one. Never the less it involves a very important and fundamental aspect of our system of governance and one we need to resolve before moving on. A question that goes to the very heart of our democracy.

A fundamental principle of democracy is that the People are sovereign and free. However, contemporary societies recognise that many aspects of our lives are better managed on a collective basis rather than be left to individuals and so they form a ‘government’ to manage these aspects for the society as a whole. An example of those aspects requiring a collective response is defence.

Also, in a democracy, ‘governments’ are formed by the People electing some of their number to represent them in a ‘parliament’. The expectation is that the member they elect to the ‘parliament’ will represent their view in the collective forum.

One of the major criticisms of ‘government’ in modern times is that they are ‘out of touch’. That ‘government’ does not seem to understand the concerns of the ‘People’. And that ‘government’ does not address the issues the ‘People’ would like addressed nor are appropriate priorities applied.

A further common criticism of ‘government’ voiced by the ‘People’ is that, although their elected ‘representative’ has all the right ideas and makes all the right noises before the election, once the representative is elected, appropriate outcomes are sadly lacking. And, despite advances in modern communications; all the letters, phone calls, faxes and emails seem to have no effect.

So what are the reasons our politicians find it so hard to deliver what the ‘People’ want? Why is it that they seem so ‘out of touch’? Why is it that our ‘government’ seems so incapable of addressing issues of fundamental concern to the ‘People’?

There are, of course, many reasons for this phenomenon and our purpose in this Task is to address each of these so we can try and design a system that will eliminate most of them.

One of the reasons for the apparent ‘remoteness’ of politicians is that they represent such large electorates. It is difficult to communicate with such a large number of people spread over such a large area even in the cities and major towns and is even more difficult in sparsely populated areas. We lead busy lives in contemporary society and the ‘People’ have made it obvious they are not prepared to spend time attending public meetings called by their local ’representative’ to discuss some issue. And for a representative to send just one letter on one issue costs more than $30,000 in postage alone without taking into account the cost of printing and the man-hours involved in folding and enveloping and addressing. However, we have addressed this issue in our decision to have Regional MPs elected from small electorates of only 5,000 voters.

The dominant role of political parties in our system is manifested in several ways. Firstly, there is the preselection of candidates. Apart from a few independent candidates, preselection is totally in the hands of political parties and in most cases, only small proportions of members of political parties have any say. Consequently, elected members of our ‘government’ tend to be more representative of political party machinery than they are of the ‘People’.

Secondly, there is the spectre of ‘party solidarity’. Members of our parliament elected as endorsed party candidates are expected to vote along party lines. That is to say, even though a ‘no’ vote on an issue might be totally against the interests of his particular electorate, a ‘representative’ is instructed to vote ‘no’ if that is the view of the ‘party machine’. To do otherwise is to invite vilification, ostracism from any future involvement in policy making, and dis-endorsement at the following election. The secret ballot facilitates this abrogation of loyalty to constituents.

The dominance of two political parties in our system of government creates a further problem when any one representative tries to get the concerns of his electorate on the agenda, let alone resolved. Party machines are primarily concerned with getting elected or re-elected - with being ‘in power’. Consequently, attention is given to policy areas that will accentuate a difference in party policy between the major political parties. Conversely, any issues the ‘party machine’ perceives as being likely to present difficulties for ‘party solidarity’ are shelved.

From the above it seems apparent that our ‘Model Constitution’ should reduce the influence of political parties in our system of government. The simplest way of doing this is for our constitution to ban political parties. However, this would cut across our fundamental belief in freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of association. It could also seriously undermine political debate in the society. Such a rule in our constitution would be totally unacceptable to most Australians. Therefore, the system of governance we devise must address the above issues while at the same time, allowing the existence of political parties.

Another factor in the apparent inability of our ‘government’ to deliver appropriate outcomes, is the adversarial manner in which parliamentary business is conducted. The arrangement of our representatives as ‘government’ on one side and ‘opposition’ on the other is totally inappropriate. It is much more appropriate that each representative has equal right to express the views of the people he represents and to vote in the same vein. Your responses to Task 18 will indicate your views on this point.

Furthermore, it is argued that a simple majority of 51% of votes in the parliament is also inappropriate. A requirement of two-thirds majority would ensure that only those measures with wide general support would succeed. Measures attracting only 50% support would have to be debated further to arrive at the consensus necessary for good government. Your responses to Task 18 will indicate your views on this question also.

Then we come to the question of ‘experience’. An understandable desire to retain persons with experience of the intricacies of parliamentary procedures, etc., has led to the emergence of ‘professional politicians’. The problem with this solution is that, the longer a person is a politician, the more ‘out of touch’ he becomes with ‘the man in the street’ and the less representative he becomes of ordinary people. A more appropriate solution might be to eliminate the intricacies of parliamentary procedures, etc.

Another avenue of ensuring that ‘government’ remains ‘representative’, is to restrict the length of time a person can be an MP. However, if our representatives were restricted to, say, one four-year term as a politician, the remuneration package would have to be sufficient to compensate people for the disadvantages of being out of their chosen profession or away from their business for four years. There are obvious disadvantages whatever approach is taken but a primary criterion for effective democracy is that government must be by ‘representatives’ of the People. The alternative is to return to the old situation of the ‘ruling classes’.

There are some other advantages of restricted terms of office as a ‘representative’.

• Firstly, all people elected will have an enhanced sense of urgency if they realise it is ‘now or never’ to get their point of view across and their issues resolved.
• Secondly, the opportunity for deal making in our parliaments would be seriously curtailed.
• Thirdly, when coupled with our system of trickle feeding new representatives into the parliaments using staggered elections, a restriction to one term will almost certainly eliminate the possibility of cliques or factions being created in our parliaments.
• Fourthly, a restriction to one term facilitates a rotation to enhance gender balance and ensure our parliaments are more representative of the community at large.

Of course, our system of allowing the best of those elected to the regional parliaments to be elected to the National Parliament after a minimum of two years in the regional parliament, will ensure that the best representatives do have an opportunity to serve for more than one term.

A response to the following questions will consolidate some previous work and provide a better guide to what should be included in our ‘Model Constitution’.

Question 1. Do you perceive our ‘government’ as being ‘out of touch’, remote, and unresponsive?

Question 2. Do you agree that political parties dominate the preselection of candidates for election?

Question 3. Can you suggest ways in which the dominance of political parties can be reduced?

Question 4. Can you suggest a system by which candidates that are more representative of ordinary people can be pre-selected?

Question 5. How can we restructure the system to promote loyalty to constituents rather than loyalty to political parties?

Question 6. Do you agree that our ‘Model Constitution’ should aim to empower ordinary people and counter the dominance of political parties in our system of governance?

Question 7. Should persons elected to represent voters in the regional parliaments and in the National Parliament be restricted to one term in office?

Question 8. If you answer to Question 7 is ‘Yes’, should that term be extended from the current preference of four years?

To five years?
To six years?

·=============== ===============·

Last updated: 3 May 2006