 |
 |
See below... David Tehr wrote: > 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)??? > No idea... estimate 60% - depends on the electoral system - usually opposed means every election. > > >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. > Doesn't follow - consider any religion... > > 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. > The problem however is that we are social beings who define ourselves against something other. Hence we do not have to live together but only within our own social group. (Ignoring here the pupose of politics) > > [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"). > Doesn't follow - We are subjects and as such we are subjected to the laws created by govenments. > > [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? > The idea of treating a democractic state as a limited stock company, chortle - I suspect that you have not worked for a long period of time in a transnational corporation. > > 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! Given such short term electoral cycles I suspect that politics would be completely trivialised and no long term structural planning would take place. > > 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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%