Here's a question for EVERYBODY.   If you do NOTHING ELSE in reply to this
debate, at least send your estimate/answer to this one question in.   My
estimate is that the apex of the bell shaped curve for the answers will be
out by a standard deviation of 3 or more!!!

QUESTION:  Of the Bills that go to a multi-party Senate Committee for
review in the Australian Federal Parliament, what percentage will
subsequently pass through both Houses of Parliament UNOPPOSED (i.e.
everyone assents to the Bill)???

>Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:21:38 +1200  Noel Cheer wrote:
>.........  Keep your poMo options open and, with Kuhn, be prepared to
>jettison a paradigm if a better one presents itself. 

OK, bee-in-bonnet time .....   OR, "something that's been nagging me for 15
years and I just HAVE to share with this discussion group to see what sort
of response it gets."

My passions are law and politics.  

[Premise #1] You can think/believe/feel what you like, but, in the end we
are all SOCIAL animals/souls, ergo we HAVE to live TOGETHER.   Ostracism =
death.  

[Premise #2] To live together (reasonably) peacefully, we need: 
(i)	laws, and 
(ii)	a system of government to administer (or, where appropriate, to
change) those laws WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY ALL THE POPULATION (i.e. to be
"legitimate").

[Premise #3] There are many examples of what have been seen as perfectly
legitimate laws in the past which would now be seen as risible at best -
and inhumane or even evil at worst - and that this process of reviewing
(and changing) what are legitimate laws will continue until Doomsday.
Since this happens continually through the life-span of a citizen, it is
accepted as a natural process of law.   HOWEVER, since "a system of
government" does NOT change so frequently, there is far more
emotional/historical/cultural investment in whichever system of government
a citizen lives under, THUS a change in this will require a "change of
paradigm" in their thinking.

I put forward as examples, reforms to the Westminster Parliamentary system
that the 19th Century British "Chartists" were fighting for, viz:
Universal Suffrage
Every man can stand for election to parliament
Parliamentarians to be paid a salary
Secret ballot
Equal electoral boundaries

All of these reforms were initially seen as ridiculous/unworkable/too
expensive/utopian/dangerous etc,
or-any-number-of-other-"rationalist"-put-downs.   And yet, TODAY, they are
ALL seen as FUNDAMENTALS (or, as I like to say: "Canons of the Faith") of
"democracy", that most revered "system of government".

[Premise #4] An important part of living together is having shared cultural
festivals/commemorations/celebrations, to recognize/solemnize/edify that
which is important to us as a community.

[Premise #5] These festivals inevitably happen on an annual basis. (In
relation to the sacred, one cannot imagine celebrating
Easter/Passover/Ramadan etc every 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc year.  Likewise
secularly, one would not celebrate birthdays, anniversaries etc similarly.)

[Premise #6] In a democratic system of government, our most "communally
sacred duty" is the secular act of voting.

[Conclusion] The Chartists had a "vision" or "paradigm" for how democracy
could and should work.   There is one more reform they promulgated which,
as yet, has never been implemented anywhere in the world, viz:  ANNUAL
GENERAL ELECTIONS.

[Discussion] 
LEGITIMACY: All incorporated bodies must, by law, have an AGM whereby
shareholders can review the workings and administration of the corporation.
  Why, as equal shareholders in our respective nations, do we not get the
same opportunity?

STABILITY: Working with the Westminster system of a Government (which is
based on having a strong and encouraged alternative Government - NOT lots
of small parties, as with Italy) there is no danger of instability
(Aoteoroa NZ may be a challenge here!)   Indeed, the very process of
HOMEOSTASIS requires the "body" to react swiftly (but not violently or
rashly) to changing circumstances in order to remain "stable".

COST EFFECTIVENESS: Money = energy.   The political process so often seems
divorced from our "real concerns", ergo people complain about how much
elections cost.   However, the facts are that a Federal election in
Australia (which is held at the whim of the Prime Minister) costs far less
than $10 per voter (this INCLUDES electioneering costs).  An Annual General
Election, with a fixed date each year, MUST cost even less.  If you believe
that $10 per year is still too much to pay, then thee & me have VERY
differing ideas as to the benefits of elections!

EDIFICATION: If we are truly to call ourselves a "democratic nation", what
are we doing to educate/inculcate/celebrate democratic principles,
processes and structures to our youth, let alone ourselves?   It never
ceases to amaze me what ignorance there is in my community about the very
fundamental things which govern our lives.   I have seen every Prime
Minister in Australia since 1974 referred to as being "just like Hitler";
the percentage of people who even know WHO their local Member is (let alone
which party they belong to) is frightfully low; a large proportion of
people believe that things would be so much better if only "the politicians
in Canberra would get together and stop fighting about things" - which
gives an indication of how out-of-touch they REALLY are with what happens
in their own governing legislature.   

I will answer the question I posed at the beginning in 2 weeks time.
Please try to answer it as you BELIEVE it to be (if you KNOW the answer,
all well and fine, but DON'T go researching it).   Politics is the art of
the possible.   I'm wanting to check-in as to people's PERCEPTIONS before
clouding the issue with facts.

In love and peace,
David Tehr
Perth, Western Australia



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%