Is it something ‘we’ have
and ‘they’ don’t?
The demonization of China
in our media – mainstream and not-so – is constant. Our biggest trading partner
is often the subject of critical comments because it is not ‘a democracy’’ -
not like us. It is worth reflecting on a few comparative news items.
Last October, the China Daily news site reported http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-10/22/content_27142506.htm
that a province in China had just
elected over 400 new lawmakers, saying, ‘The
new legislators were elected Tuesday and Wednesday in 14 cities in the
province. The 12th Liaoning Provincial People's Congress now has 594 deputies.’
Why would a province in China need 600 lawmakers when
for our central government we elect a mere total of 226 members? It transpires
that Liaoning - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaoning
- has a population of 43.9 million!
Adjoing North Korea, Liaoning has 14 prefectures, 100 counties and 1511
townships (2012 figures).
Thus this northern Chinese population elected, on the
above figures, 13.5 lawmakers per million of population, whereas, we make do
with about 10 per million: increases in population since 2012 would reduce
both figures but the indications are that Liaoning has at least as many elected
lawmakers as Australia has federally.
Of course there are many
differences. The article in China Daily also advised, ‘The by-elections for
lawmakers were carried out in Liaoning after an election fraud scandal in
January 2013 that implicated 523 deputies to the Liaoning Provincial People's
Congress. They either resigned or had their qualification as deputies
terminated.’ Which just goes to show what a crooked bunch they are or what an
effective anti-corruption watchdog they now have; take your pick.
Than again, our Parliament has an
estimated 900 registered lobbyists -http://johnmenadue.com/john-menadue-who-can-we-trust/. If we add just half these to our 225 representatives
giving us 676 lawmakers in Canberra, then we can boast as having 30 lawmakers
per million population! Lobbying is a tax deductible business expense, so they
are all on our payroll one way or another; but only10 are democratically
elected.
The phrase ‘…..qualification as
deputies terminated’ indicates that there is a mandatory qualification before a Chinese would-be
lawmaker can stand for election. In Australia almost anyone can stand for
election but one has a much better chance of success if one has been
‘pre-selected’ by an existing political party – proven party loyalty and
compliance being prerequisites to get the party’s ‘blessing’.
Thus, both in Liaoning and
Australia, voters do get a choice of candidates – but in practice it is just a
choice between candidates who have already been singled out, nominated, by some
other body.
Doubtless too the successful Chinese
candidates must espouse the communist system with specific adherence to the
current 5-Year plan that has been developed by some higher authority, the
central government in Beijing. In Australian it is assumed that one accepts
capitalism – any other ‘ism’ will create difficulties for one’s public image –
especially the variety embracing the neoliberal philosophy of globalisation,
reduced regulation, privatization programs and balanced budgets. Thus, both sets of candidates have prescribed
ideologies. The Beijing Consensus and the Washington Consensus?
That the Liaoning Provincial People's Congress does
not have any say about what the Beijing government does in the South China Sea
goes without saying. Similarly, our national Parliament has no say in the
deployment of Australian forces in foreign parts-- http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2014-09-08/julie-bishop-correct-on-australia-history-at-war/5710696–
or the deployment of foreign troops in Australian parts such as Darwin! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-16/gillard2c-obama-announce-darwin-troop-deployment/3675596
So can ‘democracy’ be rated? It is not just a binary
matter that a country either has it or it doesn’t and it is not just a matter
of ‘free and fair’ elections. Democracy does not stop at the ballot box, it is
a system and the way it functions and serves its purpose is the true measure of
it. Is it not time that we realised that
‘democracy’ is a work in progress and that we would do well to concentrate on
improving ours and let other countries attend to theirs?
We could begin by accepting:
·
that
‘democracy’ was a dirty word at the beginning of white settlement,
·
our
first governments were top down affairs; grass roots were to be trodden on,
·
the
ethos of white settlement was of centralist governance of all aspects of society;
it was after all a prison
·
our
democracy is not the result of a lengthy, natural gestation
This is in
contrast to indigenous, old societies where, in the very beginning, tribal
groups, settler communities managed their own resources and affairs and over millennia
coalesced – with much skullduggery and bloodshed - into larger more extensive
governing bodies; and finally central, national governments. In this sense,
Australia got it the ‘wrong way up’ and has never sought to accept that local communities
are best managing their own affairs and resources; at present in Australia local
government exists only at the convenience of State governments.
This status quo is firmly ensconced in our ‘community
DNA’; witness how often local initiatives and programs are conditional upon grants
– bestowed by Government - and how revered are those who are skilled at writing
the applications. No thought that the grant money may have been extracted from
other communities lacking the ‘nous’ and application skills!
If we do aim to improve our democracy, the way it
works and what it delivers, we must recognize that democratic governance
naturally grows from the small to the big; witness how the States came together
to form the Federal body. Sadly our States lack legitimacy in the sense that
they did not grow from self-governing communities.
We need local governance to be fully,
constitutionally recognised – it is the bedrock of genuine, effective democracy.
Unsourced quote – a Chinese national explains to an
Australian, ‘The difference is that you
can change the party governing but not the economic system whereas we cannot
change the governing party but we can change the system’.
Note well the New Matilda article by Paul Spinks, 'It's time for our baby democracy to walk' See https://newmatilda.com/2017/07/30/its-time-for-our-baby-democracy-to-walk/
A great critique of the present with lots of thoughts on what changes could improve it; Citizen Juries, electronic voting, start locally etc
Note that this article was published by Independent Australia (1 July 2017) - with many extra useful and informative links - at https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/this-democracy-thing,10456 I would have preferred that my sub-title (Is it something we have and they don't) had not been changed. The comparison is not really important, the immaturity of Australian democracy is!
Note well the New Matilda article by Paul Spinks, 'It's time for our baby democracy to walk' See https://newmatilda.com/2017/07/30/its-time-for-our-baby-democracy-to-walk/
A great critique of the present with lots of thoughts on what changes could improve it; Citizen Juries, electronic voting, start locally etc
Note that this article was published by Independent Australia (1 July 2017) - with many extra useful and informative links - at https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/this-democracy-thing,10456 I would have preferred that my sub-title (Is it something we have and they don't) had not been changed. The comparison is not really important, the immaturity of Australian democracy is!