Darron CharlesworthPolitical Incompetents Ruling the Halls of Power
May 26th 2010 00:44
Category: No Category
In politics language is one of the key elements. How it is used, how it is interpreted, what is its intent are all valid questions in political speak. The art of political double speak or empty language is rampant in Australia today. Graduates of the ‘Sir Humphrey Appleby School of Politics’ abound. For those unfamiliar with Sir Humphrey watch ‘Yes Minister’ and you shall be boggled by the similarity to his words and our current breed of politicians.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, himself is a high achieving graduate of the school as in SA Premier, Mike Rann. The most notable graduate however is the former Labor leader, Kim Beazley. This man had the ability to talk in circles for hours without ever saying anything and frequently did so.
The reason for this topic is in reference to a wonderful article from the ABCs Annabel Crabb: ‘The Art of Political Language’. Once I stopped laughing there was a need to comment on some of her earlier remarks. What stuck me is her thought that Australians are accepting of these linguistically challenged, truth deficient group of representatives adoring the corridors of power. On this I believe she is very much mistaken.
Underlying our electoral system is compulsory voting. Nothing wrong with this per se. What is does do though is impede what little democratic process that currently exists. The major flaw as I see it is in the voting options.
Come election time the major parties – that is the parties most likely to hold power following the count and distribution of preferences – nominate a candidate to fill a seat. The voters have no choice in this. Following the vote on of the major parties is likely to hold enough votes to take a seat. The voters have no say in who this candidate is. Occasionally an independent candidate – one not tied to either major party – will emerge victorious but this is a rarity in this country. From this flaw in the electoral system candidates unworthy or unsuited to hold such a prestigious role become members of the Parliament.
My argument for Ms Crabb, then, is that her rightly named Political Incompetents are elected time and again because the public have little option other that to vote for those served up by the parties. Yes, you could not vote or mark the Ballot Paper incorrectly. This does little to change the vote and negates what slim democracy currently available.
Changing the system could help but that would depend on the method or replacement. An American style voluntary system, while technically being more democratic because you can exercise your right not to vote, can have negative consequences. If you choose not to vote then you loose the one democratic right in nominating who represents you in the Parliament. Not voting also favours the major parties because they can mobilise greater numbers and could push out the few Minor Party members and Independents currently holding seats.
The best option would be to have the ‘Monty Brewster: None Of The Above’ option available. If enough people selected this option then the parties would have to go back and generate a fresh set of candidates. No-one who had previously been nominated by any party would be allowed to re-contest. In this way the people could say that they did not like the options placed before them. This would improve the democratic process albeit only slightly. It may however enable the public to rid our political corridors of the unimpressive, inefficient group currently residing there.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, himself is a high achieving graduate of the school as in SA Premier, Mike Rann. The most notable graduate however is the former Labor leader, Kim Beazley. This man had the ability to talk in circles for hours without ever saying anything and frequently did so.
Underlying our electoral system is compulsory voting. Nothing wrong with this per se. What is does do though is impede what little democratic process that currently exists. The major flaw as I see it is in the voting options.
Come election time the major parties – that is the parties most likely to hold power following the count and distribution of preferences – nominate a candidate to fill a seat. The voters have no choice in this. Following the vote on of the major parties is likely to hold enough votes to take a seat. The voters have no say in who this candidate is. Occasionally an independent candidate – one not tied to either major party – will emerge victorious but this is a rarity in this country. From this flaw in the electoral system candidates unworthy or unsuited to hold such a prestigious role become members of the Parliament.
Changing the system could help but that would depend on the method or replacement. An American style voluntary system, while technically being more democratic because you can exercise your right not to vote, can have negative consequences. If you choose not to vote then you loose the one democratic right in nominating who represents you in the Parliament. Not voting also favours the major parties because they can mobilise greater numbers and could push out the few Minor Party members and Independents currently holding seats.
The best option would be to have the ‘Monty Brewster: None Of The Above’ option available. If enough people selected this option then the parties would have to go back and generate a fresh set of candidates. No-one who had previously been nominated by any party would be allowed to re-contest. In this way the people could say that they did not like the options placed before them. This would improve the democratic process albeit only slightly. It may however enable the public to rid our political corridors of the unimpressive, inefficient group currently residing there.
| 63 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
