Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Political leadership – when there are no winners

By Gary Neat - posted Friday, 28 October 2011


Unlike Australia, very few countries have embraced a compulsory voting system instead preferring an optional system. For most of my voting life I've been a defender of the Australian system where every man and woman over 18 is required to vote or be fined. To me it was the ultimate form of democracy - everyone's opinion, no matter your social, economic or racial background is valued and counted. But, times change and more lately I've embraced optional voting as an answer to some of our political weaknesses.

In recent years I've watched a dumbing-down of political messages in order to placate an already apathetic electorate. If an issue or idea requires more than a 10-second news-bite or a blogosphere headline, then it's jettisoned. Multi-layered issues like climate change or the NBN become lost in phoney sound-bite warfare. No one wins and certainly not this country.

Unlike compulsory voting, an optional system might not require our political leaders to adopt the lowest common denominator every time they explain an issue. If you wanted to vote, you could. If you didn't – and this is pure democracy - then you wouldn't have to. Imagine how we might raise the bar on political debate if our political leaders didn't have to factor in the lazy and the disinterested when outlining an issue? Would it be elitist or simply a pragmatic approach to improving the standard of debate and hence government in this country?

Advertisement

Sadly, in my professional life I've found that the two professions least interested in examining their own navels are – yes, you guessed it – politicians and the media.

In an era when politics is trying to find a voice which the public will listen to and the old media is struggling for relevance, reform of both arenas from within is lamentably unlikely.

Indeed, my wager would be on New Media finding workable solutions long before political leadership can extract itself from the mire. And, that's not good news at all for Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Gary Neat is a former National President of the Australian Institute of Management, a Behavioural Strategist and Company Chairman, a former Political and Foreign Correspondent and the Campaign Director of 20+ election campaigns. He also has a Masters Degree in International Management.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Gary Neat

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy