Renewing democracy

It is almost routine to observe that there is today a palpable cynicism (and sometimes ignorance) about politics and politicians among the general public.

A number of studies also show that it is getting worse, with international research showing that cynicism, discontent, frustration, and a sense of disempowerment and helplessness have markedly increased in recent years in most mature democracies. One recent assessment confirms that "citizens have grown more distant from political parties, more critical of political elites and political institutions, and less positive toward government." The decline in political trust is most notable in the evaluations of politicians and political elites.

Of immediate concern for our democracy is that these feelings of mistrust have broadened to include the political regime and political institutions. Fortunately, this scepticism has not yet significantly affected support for the democratic creed itself.

It would appear that the public are not abandoning democratic principles, but they are critical of how these principles are functioning in our system of representative democracy. Citizens are frustrated with how contemporary democratic systems work – or how they do not work.

The solution, then, would appear to be to improve the democratic process and democratic institutions, not to accept non-democratic alternatives. People want democracy to work.

In Australia, too, there appears to be a growing conviction that our political system needs to change; that the fundamentals of the democratic contract have been corrupted; that we need to articulate a detailed agenda for reform based on an analysis of the deficiencies in our system.

The problems we confront range across many of our democratic institutions and processes: our outdated constitution; the Byzantine, power-focused behaviour of our major political parties; the disquieting alliance of our political parties with corporations and large organisations; the control of our political parties by privileged minorities; the seeming irrelevance of much parliamentary debate and political discourse in the media; the permanent state of vitriolic antagonism between the major parties; the elevation of executive secrecy above public disclosure; the winner takes all outcomes of elections which preclude the input of minority opinion; and the failure to enunciate and plan for the long term challenges we face as a community. To nominate just a few!

It is possible to redesign our institutions, although it is ironic that in an era which glorifies the novel and worships change, the same politicians who advocate flexibility and reform cling to conventions and practices which always had design flaws and which have ossified into caricatures of themselves.

Representation: Democracy or Donocracy?

The minimum requirement of any representative democracy is that governments should be elected and that all adults should have an equal right to vote. This minimum is indeed very little.

Despite the general equality in voting power, many are suspicious that not all citizens are equally able to influence their representatives. Substantial campaign donations to the major parties by large corporations and organisations such as unions and business foundations foster the perception (and perhaps the reality) that it is possible to buy privileged access to MPs and Ministers and that this influence is in proportion to the amount of money donated.

We run the risk of becoming a "corporate democracy" in which the number of shares you have purchased in the party of your choice determines your effective voting power. The substantive problem is the possibility that such donations can purchase influence. Research among corporate leaders suggests that this is why they donate to political parties.

Retired U.S. Senator Paul Simon observed in a recent speech that "anyone who has been a candidate for major public office and says ‘Campaign contributions don’t affect you’ is simply not telling the truth" and that "the financially articulate have inordinate access to policy makers." By way of example, he cites his own responses:

There is no reason to believe the same observations do not apply to Australian MPs.

I believe it is time to reign in the exponential growth of corporate donations. The retention of public funding of elections should be accompanied by measures to limit the size of individual private donations to $1500, or thereabouts, and to proscribe any donations from corporations and large organisations. An extension of free-to-air radio and television could accompany these changes.

Negative Advertising

There are other reasons to scale down paid political advertising, particularly given the increasing tendency of Australian parties to emulate the negative tactics of our American cousins. As many have suggested, such advertising is one of the corrosive influences in our political system.

To paraphrase an analogy:

Politicians shouldn’t be surprised when their negative campaigns succeed, not only in diminishing their opponents, but also in undermining confidence in all politicians. Tony Abbott’s "don’t trust politicians to elect the President" campaign was a case in point. I think we should be greatly concerned that negative campaign advertising will increase voters' cynicism about the electoral process and be taken by some voters as "a signal of the dysfunctional and unresponsive nature of the political process itself," causing them to lose interest in how they vote.

Mirror or descriptive representation

Part of the growing sense of disenfranchisement about politics among Australians may lie in the obvious differences between party members and MPs and the wider community.

Candidates, in aggregate, are not even remotely typical of the wider society, even using crude indicators such as: age, gender, income and occupation. For example, one in three of the House of Representatives Liberal members trained as lawyers (22/64 and women are under-represented in both major parties. Voters need to feel that their representatives can understand their circumstances and have sufficient identity with them to press their interests. The greater the distance of representatives from electors, the greater the mistrust.

This failure in representation begins with the political parties themselves. None of the parties in the Australian political system is a mass party with a substantial membership base. Nor are their members typical. In general, factions within the parties control the branches and manoeuvre for control of seats or regions which then become their fiefdoms – new members which they do not control are a threat. Candidates for safe and winnable seats are then chosen from within the group, which controls the area; serious contests are rare, although factions sometimes test their support in full-scale combat.

There is no question that the parties themselves have contributed to the view that they are in the thrall of special interest groups. As I have observed elsewhere, the principle of "one vote, one value" – the prime condition for a democracy – is not observed in my party’s rules. Not only does this rob us of the active commitment and participation of union members, it also disenfranchises ordinary branch members who are active in their own right. It means they can be overwhelmed by solid blocks of disciplined votes. They often resent this.

I believe it’s time for the ALP to insist on one form of membership – that of individuals who take responsibility for their own membership, including paying for it. As a first step, only individuals should be permitted to sign up as members and everyone’s vote should have the same value.

Members who sign up as individuals are more likely to commit energy and enthusiasm to an organisation they have chosen. Eliminating branch stacking, a process that has already begun in the ALP, may also help divert the considerable energies currently dissipated in turf wars and internal machinations to policy development, community activism and political strategy. It may also produce greater diversity of real membership.

Reforms to increase participation

Popular dissatisfaction with present democratic structures is also fuelling calls for a more participatory democracy.

The opportunities for electoral input are scandalously low in most democracies, limited to the chance to cast a few votes during a multiyear electoral cycle. Furthermore, declining voter turnout in advanced industrial societies (including here in the recent election) suggests growing disenchantment with this form of democratic participation that has changed little since the nineteenth century.

While participation in elections may be declining, direct contact with government officials and politicians and work with community groups has been increasing. Participation in new social movements, such as the environmental movement, has also increased substantially over the past generation.

These new participation patterns are creating pressure on governments to develop forms of more direct, participatory democracy. Increased skills and resources in contemporary societies also make expanded participation a real possibility.

A recent review of the social movement literature describes other ways that institutional reforms can increase direct citizen participation in policy making. In Germany, for example, local citizen action groups have won changes in administrative law to allow for citizen participation in local administrative processes. Italian environmental legislation now grants individuals legal standing in the courts when they seek to protect the environment from the actions of municipalities or government administrative agencies.

Similar reforms need to be debated in Australia.

While the Parliament does seek the views of the community and of experts in various fields, most of this contribution occurs in committees whose deliberations and conclusions are ignored. A treasure trove of thoughtful and meticulously prepared submissions and reports languish in countless bottom drawers.

It is possible to do much better, to open up decision making, to involve more MPs and engage the wider community, to actually thrash out the issues in real debates. Australia was once considered the "democratic laboratory" of the world. It’s time to conduct a few new experiments to revive our body politic and embrace the principles of openness, accessibility and accountability.

As a start we could:

• Commission citizens’ juries or deliberative polls on contentious and complex issues;
• Invite expert and community representatives to address the chamber in session and engage in debate with members;
• Promote and sponsor the establishment of groups such as civic and youth forums to enable more regular and efficient consultation with the public;
• Ensure that legislation introduced by the Executive undergoes a substantial period of pre-legislative development and consultation through the relevant committees, interest groups and the general public;
• Give committees the power to initiate legislation arising from their inquiries, especially if the government has failed to respond to major recommendations;
• Provide for private bills which allow private citizens or groups (with sufficient backing) to bring certain matters before the Parliament (probably through sponsoring MPs);
• Require that all petitions be investigated, if necessary by special hearings, of a dedicated petitions’ committee.

As well as engaging the general public and their representatives more fully in the democratic process, I believe such initiatives, and others like them, could transform our political system to produce a more engaged and active democracy. The goals of greater participation, more civil and co-operative parliamentary conduct and an informed public debate are worth striving for.