Saturday 20/2/10
Friends
The media today are having a ball with the shambles in our democracy. The prospect of a real democracy reminds me of the challenge that Hercules (Heracles) faced in cleaning out thirty years of dung in the Augean stables, in one day.
Strange as it may seem, the mess in our democracy can also all be swept away in one day - were we to eliminate the present system of open voting in our parliaments, which produces and supports every objectionable feature of our governmental system.
For example, ministers are answerable to the Prime Minister only. So Conroy can arrogantly refuse to disclose details of conversation with Murdoch. How come he is even talking to him. And Garrett is too busy to heed letters warning about the dangers of the rushed insulation program.
The point is that all communication should be through parliament with minsters serving and satisfying the parliament (of freely voting independents) or be sacked by vote of parliament. None of the present news furore would then occur, with all problems long settled by ministers' diligent attention to their responsibilities. And media turning from sensational stuff to in-depth analysis of the real problems. Do I really need to say more?
The rottenness at the top leaves the rest of society demoralised, and every evil unchecked.
Why do we, the people, not act to 'clean out the 'stables'? Good men are corrupted by the immorality of party politics. Where is the strong moral leadership - to put an end to it? We can't be bothered? After all, it is only necessary to agree that change must happen, and take the tiny step of membership for the New Democracy - a moral challenge if ever there was one.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Cockfighting in parliaments
Friends,
In a constructive comment on the party political scene, in this election year, Tim Colebatch (Age 16/2) has upstaged all the political commentators with his insightful comment headed: 'The Climate of division hurts us all. The cockfight mentality of Australian politics fails to deliver when hard decisions with long term effects need to be taken.' Absolutely.
Leaders with power and brains are common. So are leaders with riches and popularity. But a competent leader full of integrity and skill, coupled with sincerity, is rare indeed. (Charles Swindoll in ‘Insight for ‘Living’.)
Left to themselves, leaders so often get it wrong. Why? Because they go their own way. And we let them! Blame the system? Well, why not change it?
We forget to our hurt that democracy means 'people' share in ruling, not just politicians.
Where is the infrastructure for the practical input of the people?
William Lederer, in ‘The Anguished American’ writes, page 227: (italics amending)
‘If many of us actively discuss the subjects which trouble us, if many of us scratch and dig for ideas and solutions, then we can hope to move ahead. Even if our individual solutions are not perfect, still, the continued efforts and expressed ideas of several million citizens cannot help but have a cumulative result. The effect— and there is no doubt about this—will nourish and vitalise the nation. Such is the strength of a democracy. It is only apathy, lack of interest, and fear which can destroy us.'
Democracy means participation is a privilege and responsibility of us all. It cannot get it right, and flourish, without the care of the people.
In a constructive comment on the party political scene, in this election year, Tim Colebatch (Age 16/2) has upstaged all the political commentators with his insightful comment headed: 'The Climate of division hurts us all. The cockfight mentality of Australian politics fails to deliver when hard decisions with long term effects need to be taken.' Absolutely.
Leaders with power and brains are common. So are leaders with riches and popularity. But a competent leader full of integrity and skill, coupled with sincerity, is rare indeed. (Charles Swindoll in ‘Insight for ‘Living’.)
Left to themselves, leaders so often get it wrong. Why? Because they go their own way. And we let them! Blame the system? Well, why not change it?
We forget to our hurt that democracy means 'people' share in ruling, not just politicians.
Where is the infrastructure for the practical input of the people?
William Lederer, in ‘The Anguished American’ writes, page 227: (italics amending)
‘If many of us actively discuss the subjects which trouble us, if many of us scratch and dig for ideas and solutions, then we can hope to move ahead. Even if our individual solutions are not perfect, still, the continued efforts and expressed ideas of several million citizens cannot help but have a cumulative result. The effect— and there is no doubt about this—will nourish and vitalise the nation. Such is the strength of a democracy. It is only apathy, lack of interest, and fear which can destroy us.'
Democracy means participation is a privilege and responsibility of us all. It cannot get it right, and flourish, without the care of the people.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
What sort of people are we?
Do we courageously accept, or supinely avoid, the serious challenge of our time?
Our parliamentary democracy is among the best in the world, but it is badly flawed, like them all, with the inevitable corruption of institutionalised power, beyond the ability of the people to keep in check.
While there are many who care, there are very few who take action - for fear of change. Why do we, the people, passively accept being governed erratically, corruptly, by self-serving parties, instead of exercising the right of intelligent self-government through a parliament filled with independent representatives, answerable to us – alone?
Change demands vision of what should be, the courage to accept the challenge, and the integrity to accept the cost, the fear of which paralyses logical action. It has been truly said that change, even for the better, is never accomplished without difficulty.
The change required, to return government to people and parliament, is simple – a change of the voting system in parliament, to the secret ballot, to put a stop to the control of MPs votes by group interests, both in and out of parliament.
Until political power is returned to the people, the threat of politicians waging war will always be on the cards and, as Helen Thomas, veteran White House journalist says: ‘If we care about the children, the grandchildren, the future generations, we need to make sure that they do not become the cannon fodder of the future’.
Our parliamentary democracy is among the best in the world, but it is badly flawed, like them all, with the inevitable corruption of institutionalised power, beyond the ability of the people to keep in check.
While there are many who care, there are very few who take action - for fear of change. Why do we, the people, passively accept being governed erratically, corruptly, by self-serving parties, instead of exercising the right of intelligent self-government through a parliament filled with independent representatives, answerable to us – alone?
Change demands vision of what should be, the courage to accept the challenge, and the integrity to accept the cost, the fear of which paralyses logical action. It has been truly said that change, even for the better, is never accomplished without difficulty.
The change required, to return government to people and parliament, is simple – a change of the voting system in parliament, to the secret ballot, to put a stop to the control of MPs votes by group interests, both in and out of parliament.
Until political power is returned to the people, the threat of politicians waging war will always be on the cards and, as Helen Thomas, veteran White House journalist says: ‘If we care about the children, the grandchildren, the future generations, we need to make sure that they do not become the cannon fodder of the future’.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Another Approach!
The Melbourne Age, 8/1, is adamant that “Military ‘shock and awe’ won’t overcome terrorism”, which clearly requires a ‘smarter approach’. The US response to terrorism in the eight years since 9/11 has proved singularly ineffective, with its destruction and carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now the exposure of Al Qaida involvement in Yemen and the growing political ambiguity in Pakistan would indicate an increasing possibility of US failure to contain the terrorist danger, let alone to succeed in punishing ‘the terrorist base’, which is basically guerrilla in its operation and not susceptible to defeat by armies. Bearing in mind the debacle of Vietnam, the obvious conclusion is that the US approach has only made its position worse, and the hope that Obama might have better success with the planned increase in troops in Afghanistan, is far from convincing.
It is not surprising that there is now considerable public doubt about the value, or the virtue, if any, in maintaining the policy of a military solution to achieve the answers sort. What is becoming odd is that our politicians, of both sides, are determined to continue military support for the US when most Australians are opposed. This is shaky ground.
Another approach is long overdue. Edward de Bono’s concept of ‘lateral thinking’ must come to the rescue!
Western democracy has not bothered to win the hearts and minds in the world. The US especially has misused its power, interfering militarily in the politics of many countries, in support of trading interests. Furthermore, and importantly, it has consistently favoured Israel and failed the Palestinians in their quest for a separate state. While many Muslims may be troubled by Islamic terrorism, there is no hope of militant jihadists losing substantial Muslim support while these things remain.
Both our democracy, and Christianity, are shamed.
Now the exposure of Al Qaida involvement in Yemen and the growing political ambiguity in Pakistan would indicate an increasing possibility of US failure to contain the terrorist danger, let alone to succeed in punishing ‘the terrorist base’, which is basically guerrilla in its operation and not susceptible to defeat by armies. Bearing in mind the debacle of Vietnam, the obvious conclusion is that the US approach has only made its position worse, and the hope that Obama might have better success with the planned increase in troops in Afghanistan, is far from convincing.
It is not surprising that there is now considerable public doubt about the value, or the virtue, if any, in maintaining the policy of a military solution to achieve the answers sort. What is becoming odd is that our politicians, of both sides, are determined to continue military support for the US when most Australians are opposed. This is shaky ground.
Another approach is long overdue. Edward de Bono’s concept of ‘lateral thinking’ must come to the rescue!
Western democracy has not bothered to win the hearts and minds in the world. The US especially has misused its power, interfering militarily in the politics of many countries, in support of trading interests. Furthermore, and importantly, it has consistently favoured Israel and failed the Palestinians in their quest for a separate state. While many Muslims may be troubled by Islamic terrorism, there is no hope of militant jihadists losing substantial Muslim support while these things remain.
Both our democracy, and Christianity, are shamed.
God in control ?
God in Control ! ?
Friends,
I sometimes hear, from time, God is in control and I wonder how, exactly.. What about Hitler? Was he under God’s control? And what about Stalin – and Pol Pot. Eventually they were brought to book, but were not noticeably hindered in their murderous sprees.
And in our society, do sense and a cooperative spirit prevail; in our homes, on our streets, in our public institutions, and especially in our political world.
Is the Golden Rule regarded? Are our streets safe from violence? Do the ‘meek inherit’, or just get pushed around? So, is God in control, and if so in what sense?
I have sometimes answered that question by saying God rules in blessing and cursing.
A selfish, self-centred life has a payoff – the curse of a troubled spirit and bad outcomes – especially if the troubled spirit is ignored.
THOUGH the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting,
With exactness grinds He all. Longfellow
But, for those who live unselfish lives, fulfilling the needs of others less fortunate, there is a spiritual reward – as it is said ‘virtue is its own reward’. There is truth in that, the blessing of fulfilment and inner peace. But only if there is no dwelling on the thought of reward in the doing of it - and a patience which is based on an assurance which springs from the reserves from the spirit of love within, which is of God by a living faith.
We see in the carol, ‘Joy to the world’:
‘He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love.’
There is, and always will be, a cost for those who are part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, but love does not even know about, let alone count, the cost.
A safe, happy Christmas to all!
Friends,
I sometimes hear, from time, God is in control and I wonder how, exactly.. What about Hitler? Was he under God’s control? And what about Stalin – and Pol Pot. Eventually they were brought to book, but were not noticeably hindered in their murderous sprees.
And in our society, do sense and a cooperative spirit prevail; in our homes, on our streets, in our public institutions, and especially in our political world.
Is the Golden Rule regarded? Are our streets safe from violence? Do the ‘meek inherit’, or just get pushed around? So, is God in control, and if so in what sense?
I have sometimes answered that question by saying God rules in blessing and cursing.
A selfish, self-centred life has a payoff – the curse of a troubled spirit and bad outcomes – especially if the troubled spirit is ignored.
THOUGH the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting,
With exactness grinds He all. Longfellow
But, for those who live unselfish lives, fulfilling the needs of others less fortunate, there is a spiritual reward – as it is said ‘virtue is its own reward’. There is truth in that, the blessing of fulfilment and inner peace. But only if there is no dwelling on the thought of reward in the doing of it - and a patience which is based on an assurance which springs from the reserves from the spirit of love within, which is of God by a living faith.
We see in the carol, ‘Joy to the world’:
‘He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love.’
There is, and always will be, a cost for those who are part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, but love does not even know about, let alone count, the cost.
A safe, happy Christmas to all!
A New Slant on NO States
{My friend Charles Mollison, of the Foundation for National Revival has a somewhat different take on how to get rid of party politics. His proposal reduces electorates to five thousand with representatives all meeting in local regional assemblies. Reading between his lines, they would become the obvious choice of the people in local meetings, not personally seek office.
They would obviously have no need for airline travel, or absence from family life, and would probably be unpaid – just honoured as ‘Our Members’.
Quite a thought.
What do you think? The idea of regional parliaments (instead of state parliaments) has quite a long history, but this is a new slant!
They would obviously have no need for airline travel, or absence from family life, and would probably be unpaid – just honoured as ‘Our Members’.
Quite a thought.
What do you think? The idea of regional parliaments (instead of state parliaments) has quite a long history, but this is a new slant!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Ballots in Parliament.
This subject must never be off the agenda, because party politics is a corruption of democracy and creates more problems than it can ever solve. Democracy, as it stands, endangers the world and all its countries with its corruption and injustice, leading inevitably to the wars which constantly afflict the world.
Party politics is about power and dominance - ‘whatever it takes’ - but democracy is about intelligence and persuasion, which cannot prevail in the absence of the sobering control of the ballot, in our parliaments.
The people must determine the issues, not political party leaders. Ballots in parliament alone will make all MPs independent and give them a sincere, intense interest in all their relationships with the constituents. This will rectify what is a most important element of public concern today - the deliberate exclusion of the people from effective access to the decision-making process. All decisions by ballot in parliament will also quickly stimulate the involvement of the people. This is why the Secret Ballot Party stands for ballots in parliament - and nothing else.
Party politics is about power and dominance - ‘whatever it takes’ - but democracy is about intelligence and persuasion, which cannot prevail in the absence of the sobering control of the ballot, in our parliaments.
The people must determine the issues, not political party leaders. Ballots in parliament alone will make all MPs independent and give them a sincere, intense interest in all their relationships with the constituents. This will rectify what is a most important element of public concern today - the deliberate exclusion of the people from effective access to the decision-making process. All decisions by ballot in parliament will also quickly stimulate the involvement of the people. This is why the Secret Ballot Party stands for ballots in parliament - and nothing else.
Interest Rates - the 'Cure all'!
The cosseted big-four banks rarely have a bad year – while farmers have suffered many drought years!
The Reserve Bank (RBA) is steadily setting new rates, for fear of inflation as increases in demand outstrip economic capacity, bringing pain to business, farmers and householders on mortgages.
The Western world has demonstrated its preference for consumption rather than savings which accentuates the problem for the RBA – how to keep inflation at bay.
An aging population drives concern over the future cost of pensions together with the likely inadequacy of superannuation funds to provide adequacy of funding for retirement lifestyles.
A recent suggestion demands government attention. Since savings for future retirement and aged care are unlikely to be adequate and there is the need to dampen consumer consumption, it has been suggested that this is just the time to increase the compulsory level of contribution to super funds – from, I think, around nine percent to something like twelve percent.
The Putdown
From time to time we all suffer the pain of unappreciative, uncaring, disrespectful attitudes with which we are treated.
The worst case scenario, where someone is so evilly treated that they give up on life, is so highly regrettable and shocking to us all, as in the case of the death of Brodie Rae Constance Panlock, where workplace safety laws so deplorably failed her.
That we even need workplace safety laws is a terrible indictment on our society, and the fact that they are unable to protect a young life such as hers demonstrates how feeble are ever-expanding laws to achieve acceptable levels of morality in the community.
Depleted morality is reflected where the strong lack compassion and the weak lack the inner reserves of an experience of unconditional love – the only real anchor of the soul. We all need it. We all owe it.
The Reserve Bank (RBA) is steadily setting new rates, for fear of inflation as increases in demand outstrip economic capacity, bringing pain to business, farmers and householders on mortgages.
The Western world has demonstrated its preference for consumption rather than savings which accentuates the problem for the RBA – how to keep inflation at bay.
An aging population drives concern over the future cost of pensions together with the likely inadequacy of superannuation funds to provide adequacy of funding for retirement lifestyles.
A recent suggestion demands government attention. Since savings for future retirement and aged care are unlikely to be adequate and there is the need to dampen consumer consumption, it has been suggested that this is just the time to increase the compulsory level of contribution to super funds – from, I think, around nine percent to something like twelve percent.
The Putdown
From time to time we all suffer the pain of unappreciative, uncaring, disrespectful attitudes with which we are treated.
The worst case scenario, where someone is so evilly treated that they give up on life, is so highly regrettable and shocking to us all, as in the case of the death of Brodie Rae Constance Panlock, where workplace safety laws so deplorably failed her.
That we even need workplace safety laws is a terrible indictment on our society, and the fact that they are unable to protect a young life such as hers demonstrates how feeble are ever-expanding laws to achieve acceptable levels of morality in the community.
Depleted morality is reflected where the strong lack compassion and the weak lack the inner reserves of an experience of unconditional love – the only real anchor of the soul. We all need it. We all owe it.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
That which divides (or unites) us.
The Age (3rd Dec.) quotes Family first Senator, Steve Fielding, speaking in the Senate yesterday. He brilliantly summarised our country’s (and the world’s) problem, saying “The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is very difficult … because it polarises people”! Can we name an issue that does not?
The comment of Tony Abbott (The Age 2nd Dec. p 4), on his succession to the role of leader of the Federal Liberal Party is revealing. He ‘was confident few Liberal senators, if any, would split from the party’s new stance. “They owe their careers to the party and they will not lightly do that.”’ (My italics) Strong glue!
We note that the secret ballot for elections regularly, and quietly, succeeds in uniting the people behind the political parties they favour, even though they have little idea of the ultimate actions of those for whom they vote!
Just consider; the secret ballot in parliament would unite the members freely behind each specific issue worthy of majority support, being accountable, as independents, to their electorates alone.
Issues of religion have certainly manifested the divisiveness of doctrines. At present The Parliament of the World’s religions has convened in Melbourne. Are the participants here to unite behind peaceful social policies? A real synthesis of views, especially leading to the freedom of individual choice, would be very welcome.
But Jesus said: "I come not to bring peace, but … a sword". Now there’s a conundrum for the many that look for ‘peace on earth and goodwill to men’ (or is it to men of goodwill?). The cross of Jesus calls us to a life of self-denial and love for others. If that life is an offence to some, who feel condemned by it, it is because they have never known God; which explains the division of which ‘the sword’ is emblematic only. The Spirit calls us to a new freedom - a life of love ‘against which there is no law’.
The comment of Tony Abbott (The Age 2nd Dec. p 4), on his succession to the role of leader of the Federal Liberal Party is revealing. He ‘was confident few Liberal senators, if any, would split from the party’s new stance. “They owe their careers to the party and they will not lightly do that.”’ (My italics) Strong glue!
We note that the secret ballot for elections regularly, and quietly, succeeds in uniting the people behind the political parties they favour, even though they have little idea of the ultimate actions of those for whom they vote!
Just consider; the secret ballot in parliament would unite the members freely behind each specific issue worthy of majority support, being accountable, as independents, to their electorates alone.
Issues of religion have certainly manifested the divisiveness of doctrines. At present The Parliament of the World’s religions has convened in Melbourne. Are the participants here to unite behind peaceful social policies? A real synthesis of views, especially leading to the freedom of individual choice, would be very welcome.
But Jesus said: "I come not to bring peace, but … a sword". Now there’s a conundrum for the many that look for ‘peace on earth and goodwill to men’ (or is it to men of goodwill?). The cross of Jesus calls us to a life of self-denial and love for others. If that life is an offence to some, who feel condemned by it, it is because they have never known God; which explains the division of which ‘the sword’ is emblematic only. The Spirit calls us to a new freedom - a life of love ‘against which there is no law’.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Privacy Laws
A hospital visit to a neighbour proved interesting. When we got to the ward we found and an empty bed. Enquiring of the nursing staff where the patient might be we were informed that disclosure of the patient’s whereabouts was forbidden by the privacy laws. What could we do?
We were lucky. Down the corridor we examined the trinkets for sale and taking advantage of another browser we voiced our complaint about the nonsensical application of privacy laws. As we voiced our frustration an older staff member overheard and furtively murmured the name of another hospital, to which we gratefully repaired and completed our visit.
The blind obedience of the ward staff to obligatory rules and our complete inability to challenge the senseless of it, is just part of a much wider problem. No matter what our frustration and helplessness with the actions of government and the powerlessness of ‘representatives’, nothing can be done unless public anger swells to the point of exasperation and people take to the streets in protest on one troubling issue. But to deal with all our dissatisfactions we would all have to be fulltime activists!
A serving politician in the Victorian Parliament was asked the question: ‘What would happen if parliaments made all decisions by a ballot of the members?’ The terse reply – ‘It would make MPs accountable’. A young government whip once said: ‘It would make my job hard’. No, impossible!
Picture this! Each MP (after the adoption of the ballot) would have no party feathers to fly with. (I recently asked my (party) representative, if he would have been elected if he stood as an independent. He instantly acknowledged: ‘NO’!) It is quite evident that MPs would then be vulnerable (and accountable) because they would have to convene regular local meetings, and face frequent penetrating questions from the gathering of citizens. Certainly, an early question would highlight the public dissatisfaction with the excessive restrictive powers of the privacy laws, and a demand for their amelioration.
With parties excluded from parliament by the ballot, the people would be free to press for immediate action, and every MP would have the power to take personal and prompt responsibility for the woes of his/her electorate. !
We were lucky. Down the corridor we examined the trinkets for sale and taking advantage of another browser we voiced our complaint about the nonsensical application of privacy laws. As we voiced our frustration an older staff member overheard and furtively murmured the name of another hospital, to which we gratefully repaired and completed our visit.
The blind obedience of the ward staff to obligatory rules and our complete inability to challenge the senseless of it, is just part of a much wider problem. No matter what our frustration and helplessness with the actions of government and the powerlessness of ‘representatives’, nothing can be done unless public anger swells to the point of exasperation and people take to the streets in protest on one troubling issue. But to deal with all our dissatisfactions we would all have to be fulltime activists!
A serving politician in the Victorian Parliament was asked the question: ‘What would happen if parliaments made all decisions by a ballot of the members?’ The terse reply – ‘It would make MPs accountable’. A young government whip once said: ‘It would make my job hard’. No, impossible!
Picture this! Each MP (after the adoption of the ballot) would have no party feathers to fly with. (I recently asked my (party) representative, if he would have been elected if he stood as an independent. He instantly acknowledged: ‘NO’!) It is quite evident that MPs would then be vulnerable (and accountable) because they would have to convene regular local meetings, and face frequent penetrating questions from the gathering of citizens. Certainly, an early question would highlight the public dissatisfaction with the excessive restrictive powers of the privacy laws, and a demand for their amelioration.
With parties excluded from parliament by the ballot, the people would be free to press for immediate action, and every MP would have the power to take personal and prompt responsibility for the woes of his/her electorate. !
A Republic? Once more!
Someone has pressed the button again. Fair enough, it had to come. But are we simply seeing a rerun of the blame game and empty clichés?
The monarchy is favoured by conservative interests and the ‘It ain't broke’ syndrome, while the republican advocates merely insist that we must have a popular election model and that a president’s powers could be well codified to protect our parliamentary system. That must be explained - in the detail that we need to know.
The desire for an elected president evolves, I suspect, from the dissatisfaction of the people with the power and confusion of party politics. But this will not be changed by an elected president who is isolated from political power.
Anyway, the need for a figure head rather smacks of introspection and nationalism, which is really getting to be dated, in view of our growing involvement with global problems, reluctant though we may be.
The world, is riddled with problems, from the top (corruption) to the bottom (poverty and despair), despite one hundred and fifty years of Western democracy, because the people are too isolated from the process, without the power to move governments to effect change, and (consequently) a diminished sense of responsibility.
John Pilger, 2009 recipient of the Sydney Peace prize, in his speech, ’Breaking the Australian Silence’ (The Age, 6/11) laments the ‘carefully calibrated illusion’ of national pride in "flags and war’" while we look at injustice with the "silence" of the uninvolved.'
I suspect that our isolation from the decision-making process is at the root of our silence, and the impression that politics has nothing to do with morality.
The monarchy is favoured by conservative interests and the ‘It ain't broke’ syndrome, while the republican advocates merely insist that we must have a popular election model and that a president’s powers could be well codified to protect our parliamentary system. That must be explained - in the detail that we need to know.
The desire for an elected president evolves, I suspect, from the dissatisfaction of the people with the power and confusion of party politics. But this will not be changed by an elected president who is isolated from political power.
Anyway, the need for a figure head rather smacks of introspection and nationalism, which is really getting to be dated, in view of our growing involvement with global problems, reluctant though we may be.
The world, is riddled with problems, from the top (corruption) to the bottom (poverty and despair), despite one hundred and fifty years of Western democracy, because the people are too isolated from the process, without the power to move governments to effect change, and (consequently) a diminished sense of responsibility.
John Pilger, 2009 recipient of the Sydney Peace prize, in his speech, ’Breaking the Australian Silence’ (The Age, 6/11) laments the ‘carefully calibrated illusion’ of national pride in "flags and war’" while we look at injustice with the "silence" of the uninvolved.'
I suspect that our isolation from the decision-making process is at the root of our silence, and the impression that politics has nothing to do with morality.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Palestine - fond hopes dashed.
Any fond hopes, we might have had, that Barack Obama’s America could set to rights the ‘peace process’ in Palestine, have been swiftly dashed today by Jason Katsoukis’ Analysis. (The Age 5/10, p11).
Katsoukis comments that ‘Netanyahu is emerging as the region’s most skilled political player’, ‘outfoxing Obama on settlements (they will not cease), and forcing ‘the US to adopt his own approach of emphasising improved ... security conditions’, (no doubt continued freedom of operation of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank) instead of peace talks without preconditions, as President Obama had called for, before the United Nations.
Israel has already made it clear that it will never agree to a sovereign state of Palestine - with a military capacity.
Meanwhile, President Abbas, refusing talks without a freeze of new settlements (on US advice), has been comprehensively humiliated, causing understandable Arab 'outrage'.
Israeli defiance, and American weakness, with respect to spreading settlements in the West Bank, goes far back. No US president has succeeded in attempts to persuade Israel to desist due, perhaps, to concern over the Holocaust, and the power of the Jewish lobby. Nor has the UN any useful handle on power to successfully intervene -- with its rulings ignored.
We should ask ourselves: Can the threat of ‘terrorism’ ever be resolved by force of arms, without a solution to this outstanding injustice, causing the hatred at its root?
Katsoukis comments that ‘Netanyahu is emerging as the region’s most skilled political player’, ‘outfoxing Obama on settlements (they will not cease), and forcing ‘the US to adopt his own approach of emphasising improved ... security conditions’, (no doubt continued freedom of operation of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank) instead of peace talks without preconditions, as President Obama had called for, before the United Nations.
Israel has already made it clear that it will never agree to a sovereign state of Palestine - with a military capacity.
Meanwhile, President Abbas, refusing talks without a freeze of new settlements (on US advice), has been comprehensively humiliated, causing understandable Arab 'outrage'.
Israeli defiance, and American weakness, with respect to spreading settlements in the West Bank, goes far back. No US president has succeeded in attempts to persuade Israel to desist due, perhaps, to concern over the Holocaust, and the power of the Jewish lobby. Nor has the UN any useful handle on power to successfully intervene -- with its rulings ignored.
We should ask ourselves: Can the threat of ‘terrorism’ ever be resolved by force of arms, without a solution to this outstanding injustice, causing the hatred at its root?
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
'United we stand, divided we fall'
'United we stand, divided we fall'*. The government is now tied in knots
over its endeavour to treat the Sri Lanka asylum seekers with
compassion. It will probably have to revise its stance, to the delight
of its critics.
Clearly, our adversarial system of government is stupid.
The ballot solves elections with a minimum of fuss. Applied in
parliament, the ballot would repeat that success with all issues,
improving decisions at all levels, calming useless conflict and
eliciting respect for our government here and across the world. Just do
it.
'United we stand, divided we fall'.
*Aesop, of Aesop's Fables
over its endeavour to treat the Sri Lanka asylum seekers with
compassion. It will probably have to revise its stance, to the delight
of its critics.
Clearly, our adversarial system of government is stupid.
The ballot solves elections with a minimum of fuss. Applied in
parliament, the ballot would repeat that success with all issues,
improving decisions at all levels, calming useless conflict and
eliciting respect for our government here and across the world. Just do
it.
'United we stand, divided we fall'.
*Aesop, of Aesop's Fables
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Decisions, decisions!!!
Decisions, decisions, representing both the problem and the opportunity of mankind, are the unavoidable precursors to effective action, in both personal and communal life, to produce the results desired and guard against the troubles to be avoided.
That’s politics in all its dimensions, from the curse of bad decisions to the euphoria of sweet success. But, do the sufferings and the rewards descend equally on all. That too is politics. Is it good enough?
I have just finished reading Taylor Branch’s masterly coverage of the Negro search for freedom and dignity in America, from the Civil War to the march on Washington that concluded a long series of struggles against the political segregation which, along with the deeply manifested hate, lay so disastrously heavy on the Negroes, in the South especially.
But this detailed history covering some nine hundred pages also revealed the dysfunction of the separate government institutions which so effectively stood in the way of righting widespread, severe wrongs. Clearly, America is still in turmoil today, with high aims for itself and the world, but enormous dissent. Has the ‘democracy’, which she seeks to implant in the East, real credibility?
But where do we stand? We are quite different and it has been said that our Prime Minister has more power than an American President. But both are at odds with the varied manifestations of representative government – small parties and state powers. Difficulties abound and critically question the reality of the democracy so often claimed. There are many who are worried – how can the many problems of the present – and the future - be resolved in a desirable climate of peace? Our democracy needs reform. The ballot in parliament is sound but has appealed to few. Where else can we look?
A Queensland group, The Foundation for National Renewal, have conceived an entirely new basis of democratic government, in which fifty representatives of quite small electorates (5000) would meet in regional parliaments (covering 250000), which would each send a representative to the National Parliament. These representatives would rejoin their regional parliaments on the Friday of each sitting week, thus enabling cross conferencing and integrating government of all levels automatically. So, what do you think of that?
Check http://www.national-renewal.org.au/ for more detail.
That’s politics in all its dimensions, from the curse of bad decisions to the euphoria of sweet success. But, do the sufferings and the rewards descend equally on all. That too is politics. Is it good enough?
I have just finished reading Taylor Branch’s masterly coverage of the Negro search for freedom and dignity in America, from the Civil War to the march on Washington that concluded a long series of struggles against the political segregation which, along with the deeply manifested hate, lay so disastrously heavy on the Negroes, in the South especially.
But this detailed history covering some nine hundred pages also revealed the dysfunction of the separate government institutions which so effectively stood in the way of righting widespread, severe wrongs. Clearly, America is still in turmoil today, with high aims for itself and the world, but enormous dissent. Has the ‘democracy’, which she seeks to implant in the East, real credibility?
But where do we stand? We are quite different and it has been said that our Prime Minister has more power than an American President. But both are at odds with the varied manifestations of representative government – small parties and state powers. Difficulties abound and critically question the reality of the democracy so often claimed. There are many who are worried – how can the many problems of the present – and the future - be resolved in a desirable climate of peace? Our democracy needs reform. The ballot in parliament is sound but has appealed to few. Where else can we look?
A Queensland group, The Foundation for National Renewal, have conceived an entirely new basis of democratic government, in which fifty representatives of quite small electorates (5000) would meet in regional parliaments (covering 250000), which would each send a representative to the National Parliament. These representatives would rejoin their regional parliaments on the Friday of each sitting week, thus enabling cross conferencing and integrating government of all levels automatically. So, what do you think of that?
Check http://www.national-renewal.org.au/ for more detail.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Symposium again!
A VIP at the Symposium (self-defined 'Very Irish Person'), complained volubly about 'Compulsory Voting'.
1. Barry Jones explained that it is not compulsory voting, only compulsory attendance at the polling booth, (with your use of the secret vote or not being up to you). The aim is to make parliament, as much as possible, truly representative of the whole secretly-voting population. But does this democratic correctness maximise popular support of the government?
2. By a further requirement, all squares on the voting paper must be correctly completed, enabling the two leading contenders to share all transferred preferences, giving the winner over 50% of the vote, invulnerability in the Lower House, and the Prime Minister nearly dictatorial power - to the frustration of the Opposition and many of the people!
3. In other countries the percentage of people voting is often quite low. Britain, for example, has first-past-the-post voting, and government is won without preferences, and less than 50% of the vote. There the party government's rule is more flexible, except where a policy is determined by a 'three-line whip' making member conformance mandatory.
4. The real point of course is that the ruling party power derives its undemocratic power by its control of parliamentary voting in the absence of secret voting in the House. The cure is dead easy for a populace which might become inclined to take an elementary interest in the government of their country.
1. Barry Jones explained that it is not compulsory voting, only compulsory attendance at the polling booth, (with your use of the secret vote or not being up to you). The aim is to make parliament, as much as possible, truly representative of the whole secretly-voting population. But does this democratic correctness maximise popular support of the government?
2. By a further requirement, all squares on the voting paper must be correctly completed, enabling the two leading contenders to share all transferred preferences, giving the winner over 50% of the vote, invulnerability in the Lower House, and the Prime Minister nearly dictatorial power - to the frustration of the Opposition and many of the people!
3. In other countries the percentage of people voting is often quite low. Britain, for example, has first-past-the-post voting, and government is won without preferences, and less than 50% of the vote. There the party government's rule is more flexible, except where a policy is determined by a 'three-line whip' making member conformance mandatory.
4. The real point of course is that the ruling party power derives its undemocratic power by its control of parliamentary voting in the absence of secret voting in the House. The cure is dead easy for a populace which might become inclined to take an elementary interest in the government of their country.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Democracy’s Failure
As I ‘look’ around the world, I see nothing but trouble, and the more trouble I see the more I think to myself: ‘Wouldn’t it be good if only we had democracy – instead of power politics from shire councils up. At every level, from local to global, policies and decisions are determined in the adversarial context created by the virtually unhindered acquisition of political power and consequent advantage – the so frequent failing of mankind in matching greed and a disrespect for the second commandment – ‘to love thy neighbour as thyself.’.
While experimental models abound, serious flaws prevail. Democracy suffers from the lack of a true model anywhere, in place or time. Even the Athenian democracy from whence the dream of democracy sprang, is picked over by the cynics, to ‘prove’ that it can never be achieved, so why bother. Certainly, slaves had no vote but, throughout the people generally there must have been a remarkable generosity of spirit amongst the people, even for the dream to be born, and also lived for a time.
Their decisions were simply reached in open meetings of the people, with opinions of all freely expressed, until desirable solutions became obvious, and no longer challenged. Thus the people made the rules by which they were governed. Quaker meetings today betray a similar principle of operation, reflecting the regard that they have for each other. It is apparent that mutual respect is encouraged in this context and tends towards becoming the norm in a climate of trust.
Thus the genius of theoretical democracy lies in its design that no one might dominate another. But, what has happened to sabotage the theory, to the serious disadvantage, and risk, to us all?
Principles of peaceful governance fail us from the local level, to the state, nation and the world. Leaders are treated with contumely and even their lives sometimes threatened by individuals and groups who are dissatisfied with current trends in policy. It is reported that the net is alive with threats to the life of President Obama, in ‘the world’s greatest democracy’.
At present I am reading the story of Afghan independent MP, Malalai Joya whose life is under continual threat, and before her expulsion from parliament her microphone was cut off if she dared to speak, because she would not refrain from exposing the criminality of the warlords who control Afghanistan with the support of America and its allies, including Australia.
The world is struggling uphill with mounting problems, with its peoples’ ideal of self-government wrecked on the rocky shores of ideology and religion. Democracy, which belongs to the people, is secular, standing for the public interest, the wellbeing of the people, but it has lost the battle with the self-interest of the people. Is that the way we really want it to be? There are some ‘stirrings in the tree tops’, but a national revival of the will of the people is essential.
While experimental models abound, serious flaws prevail. Democracy suffers from the lack of a true model anywhere, in place or time. Even the Athenian democracy from whence the dream of democracy sprang, is picked over by the cynics, to ‘prove’ that it can never be achieved, so why bother. Certainly, slaves had no vote but, throughout the people generally there must have been a remarkable generosity of spirit amongst the people, even for the dream to be born, and also lived for a time.
Their decisions were simply reached in open meetings of the people, with opinions of all freely expressed, until desirable solutions became obvious, and no longer challenged. Thus the people made the rules by which they were governed. Quaker meetings today betray a similar principle of operation, reflecting the regard that they have for each other. It is apparent that mutual respect is encouraged in this context and tends towards becoming the norm in a climate of trust.
Thus the genius of theoretical democracy lies in its design that no one might dominate another. But, what has happened to sabotage the theory, to the serious disadvantage, and risk, to us all?
Principles of peaceful governance fail us from the local level, to the state, nation and the world. Leaders are treated with contumely and even their lives sometimes threatened by individuals and groups who are dissatisfied with current trends in policy. It is reported that the net is alive with threats to the life of President Obama, in ‘the world’s greatest democracy’.
At present I am reading the story of Afghan independent MP, Malalai Joya whose life is under continual threat, and before her expulsion from parliament her microphone was cut off if she dared to speak, because she would not refrain from exposing the criminality of the warlords who control Afghanistan with the support of America and its allies, including Australia.
The world is struggling uphill with mounting problems, with its peoples’ ideal of self-government wrecked on the rocky shores of ideology and religion. Democracy, which belongs to the people, is secular, standing for the public interest, the wellbeing of the people, but it has lost the battle with the self-interest of the people. Is that the way we really want it to be? There are some ‘stirrings in the tree tops’, but a national revival of the will of the people is essential.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
‘Israel, US toil to break impasse.’
This Age heading (16/9) implies that both are agreed on a desired outcome. That could be true were it a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians they were seeking together. However, the ‘impasse’ referred to, concerns the basic stumbling block in the long-running attempts at peace negotiations between Israel and the leaders of the Palestinians, whose aspiration for a national identity has being steadily demolished, by the settler ‘invasion’ of the West Bank.
The article clearly indicates that: ‘Israeli president, Mr. Netanyahu, told members of the Israeli parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee that he had defied American requests to stop construction completely’. US presidents, from Ronald Reagan on, acting on behalf of an ineffective UN, have been unable to secure the necessary cooperation of Israeli governments.
Settlement continues unabated, with Israeli settlers in the West bank constantly growing in numbers supported by the IDF.
The whole tenor of the article denies the impression given by the article’s headline, which I find puzzling, to say the least. The world has waited since 1948 for this standoff to be resolved and the plight of the Palestinians to be respected.
The article clearly indicates that: ‘Israeli president, Mr. Netanyahu, told members of the Israeli parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee that he had defied American requests to stop construction completely’. US presidents, from Ronald Reagan on, acting on behalf of an ineffective UN, have been unable to secure the necessary cooperation of Israeli governments.
Settlement continues unabated, with Israeli settlers in the West bank constantly growing in numbers supported by the IDF.
The whole tenor of the article denies the impression given by the article’s headline, which I find puzzling, to say the least. The world has waited since 1948 for this standoff to be resolved and the plight of the Palestinians to be respected.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Palestinian peace talks
The Age today (27/8) published an article: 'Truth
is the way to peace' by Jonathan Freedland from the English 'Guardian',
in which he writes: 'Peace may have stayed out of reach because for too
long we refused to confront the true causes of this war', which are more
than a century old, even then ignoring such reasons for hatred as the
favoured son dispute between Ishmael and Isaac the favoured son and
ancestor of a 'chosen' people. It is worth noting that both Judaism and
Islam have long rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah, Prince of Peace,
as well as rejecting the second commandment: 'to love thy neighbour'at.
For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.
While Palestinians, and Israelis generally, want to live in peace, the
sticking points are numerous.
Most Palestinians would accept Israel just as Israelis generally would
accept a Palestinian state, but Israel will not accept a Palestine with
any military capacity, which would seem to mean they would live under
Israeli rule - hardly a happy result for Palestinians.
On a different tack, Israel has the serious demographic problem of the
Israeli Arabs, with their large families, fearing Jewish minority
status. Israel proposes to make these Arabs swear allegiance to a Jewish
state, or have no vote. Palestinian prospects of freedom look dim.
In fact, the very strength of the Palestinian resistance, the
willingness of martyrs to die, now proves a substantial hindrance to an
honourable outcome to the peace process. Arab aggression, in war or
with rockets and suicide bombers, has solved nothing, only prolonging
the agony, with Palestinian losses, whether fighters or civilians,
always being far in excess of the enemy losses; as for example in the
recent Gaza Strip conflict, where rockets killed hundreds, but the IDF
killed some 3 1/2 thousand.
However, the major problem may turn out to be, again, that American
presidents' power to secure an answer to this problem is seriously
compromised by the strength of the Jewish lobby in America. The
Spooner cartoon accompanying the above article shows an uncertain Barack
Obama, with a huge 'rock' to roll away. The rock is labelled MIDDLE
EATERN/ ANTI - SEMITISM. That's wierd! In 1948 most of the Arab
population fled in terror to refugee camps. Is that any basis for
believing in a satisfactory answer at this stage without a truly
powerful peacemaker - and a really fair answer?
is the way to peace' by Jonathan Freedland from the English 'Guardian',
in which he writes: 'Peace may have stayed out of reach because for too
long we refused to confront the true causes of this war', which are more
than a century old, even then ignoring such reasons for hatred as the
favoured son dispute between Ishmael and Isaac the favoured son and
ancestor of a 'chosen' people. It is worth noting that both Judaism and
Islam have long rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah, Prince of Peace,
as well as rejecting the second commandment: 'to love thy neighbour'at.
For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.
While Palestinians, and Israelis generally, want to live in peace, the
sticking points are numerous.
Most Palestinians would accept Israel just as Israelis generally would
accept a Palestinian state, but Israel will not accept a Palestine with
any military capacity, which would seem to mean they would live under
Israeli rule - hardly a happy result for Palestinians.
On a different tack, Israel has the serious demographic problem of the
Israeli Arabs, with their large families, fearing Jewish minority
status. Israel proposes to make these Arabs swear allegiance to a Jewish
state, or have no vote. Palestinian prospects of freedom look dim.
In fact, the very strength of the Palestinian resistance, the
willingness of martyrs to die, now proves a substantial hindrance to an
honourable outcome to the peace process. Arab aggression, in war or
with rockets and suicide bombers, has solved nothing, only prolonging
the agony, with Palestinian losses, whether fighters or civilians,
always being far in excess of the enemy losses; as for example in the
recent Gaza Strip conflict, where rockets killed hundreds, but the IDF
killed some 3 1/2 thousand.
However, the major problem may turn out to be, again, that American
presidents' power to secure an answer to this problem is seriously
compromised by the strength of the Jewish lobby in America. The
Spooner cartoon accompanying the above article shows an uncertain Barack
Obama, with a huge 'rock' to roll away. The rock is labelled MIDDLE
EATERN/ ANTI - SEMITISM. That's wierd! In 1948 most of the Arab
population fled in terror to refugee camps. Is that any basis for
believing in a satisfactory answer at this stage without a truly
powerful peacemaker - and a really fair answer?
Underdogs – Part I
Football
Martin Flanagan (The Age 31/8) gives a history of the fluctuating fortunes of Melbourne’s various football teams over the last seventy five years. In all sports there are winners and losers. The question: ‘Which team will be premiers?’ occupies many minds over the football season, not least those of the players themselves, and not forgetting those who tip the weekly.
However, in competitive sports, what makes some winners, and others losers, is not easy to assess the possible outcome attracts much interest, analysis – and guesswork. For many, quite a bit is at stake, and consequently the interest of the public is presently heading for the crescendo of a close final game
Captains, coaches, and of course the players, are all important but, often teams are favoured with the support of backers, wealthy or otherwise influential, which can tip the balance with an important moral support, rescuing the team from its underdog status.
Palestine – ‘Farmers’ struggle to harvest beset by a faceless menace’ (The Age 31/8).
There are places where the unfairness of the ‘competition’ is so entrenched that the underdogs have so little chance of escape that there is virtually no hope for a reasonable future. The above story – on page eight – does not appear in the Online Age, which means that, as papers disappear, underdogs’ troubles will be less and less visible for a concerned public to see.
The fact is that there are Palestinian farmers who suffer attacks form masked settlers whose homes adjoin their farms, with crops and buildings burnt, orchards surrounded by encroaching settler homes and poisoned, without any chance of protection or redress. Put simply, the Israeli settlers do as they please, with a mere token response from the IDF (Israel Defence Force, apparently there to defend the settlers!) and no settler in danger of being punished.
The settlements, without official approval, but the effective support of the Israeli government, occupy much of the Palestinian West Bank, making it virtually impossible for there ever to be a Palestinian homeland, despite the repeated efforts of America, and others over many years to make this happen.
The Palestinians are truly underdogs - a case of a religion creating a virtually insoluble problem and democracy not finding a solution.
History
For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.
Martin Flanagan (The Age 31/8) gives a history of the fluctuating fortunes of Melbourne’s various football teams over the last seventy five years. In all sports there are winners and losers. The question: ‘Which team will be premiers?’ occupies many minds over the football season, not least those of the players themselves, and not forgetting those who tip the weekly.
However, in competitive sports, what makes some winners, and others losers, is not easy to assess the possible outcome attracts much interest, analysis – and guesswork. For many, quite a bit is at stake, and consequently the interest of the public is presently heading for the crescendo of a close final game
Captains, coaches, and of course the players, are all important but, often teams are favoured with the support of backers, wealthy or otherwise influential, which can tip the balance with an important moral support, rescuing the team from its underdog status.
Palestine – ‘Farmers’ struggle to harvest beset by a faceless menace’ (The Age 31/8).
There are places where the unfairness of the ‘competition’ is so entrenched that the underdogs have so little chance of escape that there is virtually no hope for a reasonable future. The above story – on page eight – does not appear in the Online Age, which means that, as papers disappear, underdogs’ troubles will be less and less visible for a concerned public to see.
The fact is that there are Palestinian farmers who suffer attacks form masked settlers whose homes adjoin their farms, with crops and buildings burnt, orchards surrounded by encroaching settler homes and poisoned, without any chance of protection or redress. Put simply, the Israeli settlers do as they please, with a mere token response from the IDF (Israel Defence Force, apparently there to defend the settlers!) and no settler in danger of being punished.
The settlements, without official approval, but the effective support of the Israeli government, occupy much of the Palestinian West Bank, making it virtually impossible for there ever to be a Palestinian homeland, despite the repeated efforts of America, and others over many years to make this happen.
The Palestinians are truly underdogs - a case of a religion creating a virtually insoluble problem and democracy not finding a solution.
History
For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Political shambles.
'With governments like this in charge'. So runs the heading over the Age letter of 7/8 by John Gemmell,
as he fumes about government approaches to political campaign funding, stumbling water policy, public fear mongering, secrecy, and dismissal of expert opinion. (continue at http://secretballot.blogspot.com/)
Indeed, as we see the fruitless confrontation in Canberra over climate change, with personal pride being the dominant factor hindering the kind of intelligent interaction that a believer in democracy might hope for, is it any wonder that we see discouragement rampant in the community?
We are assured in the Bible that 'the powers that be are ordained by God'. Well, that leaves us in a bit of a quandary. The comment: 'Why do we do it?' rings a tiny bell somewhere. Yes, why? In fact we do do it - we vote them in and we vote them out. That's it! That's the extent of our political engagement!
Shaun Carney writes, (The Age 12/8): 'What we're seeing is the failure of the established political parties and the political system itself to generate a discussion, a revolt - anything at all - on one of the great issues of our time.' Where is the public engagement? Indeed, where is it? That is apart from the media, which does nothing to bring opposed view together where a synthesis can operate.
The same thing applies to the experts. We get scattered views but no resolution, enabling one 'expert' (The Age 13/8) such as Dr Gordon Cheyne (Dr. of what?) to assert confidently that there is no such thing as dangerous climate change.
We need a political process that resolves problems, quickly, securely, eliminating political heat (which achieves nothing at all).
Meanwhile, suggestions are made that party campaigns should be publicly funded, so the totally corrupt practice of allowing the flow of vested interest funds to the parties (cash for a chat to a minister), can be arrested. Isn't it quite ludicrous that we should even consider lavishing public money on the parties to enlarge the very campaigns they use to fight for power, while doing nothing to increase opportunities for our involvement as intelligent participants? They just don't care about political reform, do they?
Our political process needs modernising, but not in a manner that might suit the powers-that-be. As Alfred E. Smith (a former governor of New York) once said: 'All the evils of democracy can be cured by more democracy'.
as he fumes about government approaches to political campaign funding, stumbling water policy, public fear mongering, secrecy, and dismissal of expert opinion. (continue at http://secretballot.blogspot.com/)
Indeed, as we see the fruitless confrontation in Canberra over climate change, with personal pride being the dominant factor hindering the kind of intelligent interaction that a believer in democracy might hope for, is it any wonder that we see discouragement rampant in the community?
We are assured in the Bible that 'the powers that be are ordained by God'. Well, that leaves us in a bit of a quandary. The comment: 'Why do we do it?' rings a tiny bell somewhere. Yes, why? In fact we do do it - we vote them in and we vote them out. That's it! That's the extent of our political engagement!
Shaun Carney writes, (The Age 12/8): 'What we're seeing is the failure of the established political parties and the political system itself to generate a discussion, a revolt - anything at all - on one of the great issues of our time.' Where is the public engagement? Indeed, where is it? That is apart from the media, which does nothing to bring opposed view together where a synthesis can operate.
The same thing applies to the experts. We get scattered views but no resolution, enabling one 'expert' (The Age 13/8) such as Dr Gordon Cheyne (Dr. of what?) to assert confidently that there is no such thing as dangerous climate change.
We need a political process that resolves problems, quickly, securely, eliminating political heat (which achieves nothing at all).
Meanwhile, suggestions are made that party campaigns should be publicly funded, so the totally corrupt practice of allowing the flow of vested interest funds to the parties (cash for a chat to a minister), can be arrested. Isn't it quite ludicrous that we should even consider lavishing public money on the parties to enlarge the very campaigns they use to fight for power, while doing nothing to increase opportunities for our involvement as intelligent participants? They just don't care about political reform, do they?
Our political process needs modernising, but not in a manner that might suit the powers-that-be. As Alfred E. Smith (a former governor of New York) once said: 'All the evils of democracy can be cured by more democracy'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)