New Democracy…NO Parties…Exit Gutless Pollies??
GetUp Quiz On ‘How Should I Vote?’
November 21, 2007It IS Said That Without Vision People Perish
November 25, 2007‘Let’s put the people back into politics’ says The New Democracy Foundation, an organisation that believes political reform starts with the people. They have won a $300K federal government grant to look at ‘Creating And Analysing A Citizens’ Parliament: Exploring The Public’s Deliberative Capacity’ – how we might have democracy without political parties?
Key Supporters include:
John N. Button
Fred Chaney
Lyn Carson
Ian Marsh
Janette Hartz-Karp
Luca Belgiorno-Nettis
Kathy Jones
Some Comments
I recently heard Luca Belgiorno-Nettis of Transfield Services interviewed by the ABC’s Jon Faine. He and his wife have personally put $750,000 into the project. Luca says,
“As a director in a private company, I was regularly set upon by the political parties to contribute to their electoral campaigns.
What became increasingly apparent was how similar they all sounded. There was little real policy difference…I became perplexed by what appeared to me to be wasteful debate, unnecessarily polarising the community in the process.
At one function in challenging a Parliamentarian that there must be a better way, I was shrugged off as if there could not possibly be any.”
Replying to PWF’s Weak Democracy…Citizens have No Real Role Ian Plowman (University of Queensland School of Business and Online Opinion writer ‘Why would people speak up if they’re only going to be ignored?) states that he has investigated innovation within organisations and found that hierarchy naturally and automatically blocks information flows upwards.
Those in leadership positions are driven by ‘need for power’, a neurochemically-underpinned condition that blocks creativity in self and others. The creative wisdom that organizations require tends to remain unheard within the ranks. He quotes his research:
“Leadership is a two-edged sword. It is an act of civic responsibility. It is also an act of denying someone else the opportunity to gain civic experience. The more that civic experience is shared, the healthier and more innovative is the community’
To free up those creative voices, I have developed a process of social dialogue that is as counterintuitive as it is effective. Based on evolutionary psychology, ‘Meetings without Discussion’ enables respectful dialogue to occur between any number of people, from two to hundreds. It is great fun, delivers participation, understanding, ideas and commitment, in substantially less time than most meetings we attend.”
Is this similar I wonder to the ‘dialogue without debate’ process used by the fledgling Australian Study Circles Association?
There IS a lot of talk about deliberative democracy at the moment – maybe the time has come to ‘tweak our democratic process’? Criticism of hidden power and how it is wielded – or NOT wielded – is making its way into the public arena. For example:
1. Our Pollies Are Gutless On Obesity says Professor Ilona Kickbusch, a public health consultant to the Swiss Government, ‘Thinker in Residence’ and guest speaker at the Tipping The Scales Against Obesity Conference in Adelaide.
Ilona was highly critical of our politicians’ approach to obesity, which is set to affect four in 10 children by 2025, and found the lack of commitment surprising as Australia was seen as a world leader in tackling smoking and tobacco advertising.
Last month Labor dumped proposals to ban junk-food advertising and stop the use of movie and television characters to promote fast food, reportedly after industry lobbying. The decision brought the party in line with Coalition policy. Ilona says,
“Childhood obesity is increasing by 1 per cent a year, which means that by 2025 at least 40 per cent of all children in Australia will be obese.
The health consequences are enormous – diabetes, chronic fatigue … and for the first time in the last 150 years, it could mean a reduction in life expectancy.
There is already significant action taking place overseas and Australian politicians could build on that…
If Pepsi is not selling sweet drinks in schools in the United States, then we expect Pepsi not to sell sweet drinks in schools in Australia. That would make a significant difference (here).
I’m very surprised, because in a number of other countries politicians are much more courageous than that, particularly in relation to fast food and soft drinks…”
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger pressured US soft-drink companies with regulation to make them remove drinks from schools and British television regulator OFCOM has ruled that no fast-food advertising targeting children under 16 should appear on television.
2. The Right To Know Report has found the flow of information is
“blocked by a growing culture of secrecy, defensiveness and mutual mistrust within government is whittling away press freedom in Australia and denying the public access to crucial information.”
The Right To Know coalition of leading media outlets representing print, radio and TV commissioned the research.
We have one comment on participative democracy, what do you think about the ‘public’s deliberative capacity’?
8 Comments
As a member of the newDemocracy Project research team, I just want to clarify what this is about. It is a research project undertaken by the non-profit newDemocracy Foundation and academics from several Australian universities. The Foundation will provide the public face of the project, which aligns with its aim to re-engage the populace (and the media) in rational dialogue about the nature of Australian politics. The nD Project will create and study a participatory process by 150 randomly-selected citizens from whom recommendations will emerge, starting with small-group regional meetings and culminating in a plenary Citizens’ Parliament. Participating citizens will answer the question “how can Australia’s political system be strengthened to represent better the will of the people?” The nD Project does not aim to subdue the power of political parties, or in fact promote any other specific solution or framework. Whilst guided by experienced facilitation and a Reference Panel of experts in legal, social, political and other disciplines, the intention is for the citizens themselves to generate options for change. The deliberative capacity of citizens is presumed, like innocence before the law. But the research endeavour will be rigorous in its methodology and subsequent analysis of the extent of that capacity.
Thank you for your academic clarification Ron. I find the prospect of this investigation exciting and uplifting but if the ‘system is to be strengthened to better represent the will of the people’ and if the group of 150 does generate options for change – doesn’t this promote change? If some options for change ARE decided, where does the nD Project go from here? Will the change options be put to political parties as an advisory document, or…? I look forward to your response.
Hi Gail, no worries.
The process will be designed to allow participants to generate change options, but nD itself is not promoting any particular types or extents of change. That’s up the participants. My point was that their recommendations don’t just have to do directly with political parties. For example, the participants may decide to look at our electoral system(s), the structures of government, political funding rules, media regulations, civics education, etc. etc.
Your question about binding influence is an important one. Citizens will have greater commitment to dialogue and deliberation if they know their recommendations will be acted upon. The project team is only just out of its starting blocks, but work in that regard has begun in earnest.
Thanks for this Ron – of course (!) there are many ways other than dealing directly with political parties to affect change, as you say ‘our electoral system(s), the structures of government, political funding rules, media regulations, civics education, etc.’
I couldn’t agree with you more that people are unlikely to have any part of this process if there is no clear way forward for agreed change options. This I believe is the major driver of community lethargy apparent in many regions. However, I do think there needs to be some sort of ‘feedback from/inclusion of’ the political parties or the exercise could run the risk of being viewed as purely academic.
What sort of connection does nD have with the political parties?
Here’s a project you may find of interest given the posting – http://www.shapingamericasyouth.com/. This was a national initiative in the US to develop appropriate responses to youth obesity through citizen deliberative forums.
Gail,
The newDemocracy Foundation has no alliance to political parties. We have tried to be scrupulously non-partisan.
Former politicians, such as Fred Chaney and the late John Button, admit in interviews on the website that the party system is no longer capable of adequately representing the electorate.
We even have a rap song…”The Party’s Over!”
Need we say more?!?
Luca belgiorno-Nettis
I congratulate everyone involved with this endeavour. Very clearly, political parties have replaced parliament as the source of political power in our country. This is one of the reasons why CIR (that’s Citizens’ Initiated Referendums) Australia was incorporated this year.
The principal of CIR is very simple: if enough electors petition for a referendum on a particular matter then that matter must be put to a referendum at the next convenient time.
I hope very much that the Citizens’ Parliament will include CIR in its deliberations.
We are in the process of putting up our website at http://www.CIR-Australia.net I will post again when we are up and running.
In the meantime, thanks again to you all.
Ronald Evans
President CIR Australia
Thanks for your comment and the advice about CIR Ronald, we look forward to your post.