Democracy - What is it good for?

If you ask the average punter on the street what democracy means to them, it probably would be one of:

• a right to vote
• representation

In Australia, we have compulsory voting, with a very high rate of formal votes. In other Western democracies, that ‘right’ to vote is not exercised by a large proportion of the population.

As for representation, what is being represented? Whose interests? In many systems that have inherited the English parliament, there are effectively only two parties vying for power. These don’t represent anyone but themselves. They try to attract the votes of the people (voters). In some countries, the voters are representatives of the parties!

Under these circumstances, it is very hard for anyone outside of the two parties to get a chance - with some exceptions. We always talk in terms of two-party preferred polling (that is, the last two candidates standing when all others’ votes are exhausted). This is an essentially meaningless number because it ignores what people actually voted for. If the two parties represent only 70% of the primary vote, say, then that’s a lot of discontent with the two-party system.

It doesn’t take much to work out that those being elected do not represent those doing the voting. Therefore, you need to either change the pool from which those being elected arise (that is, remove the parties), or else change who (or what) gets to vote.

In a country where a third of the population weren’t born here, it seems strange that there is no political force that represents migrants. It makes more sense for a community-based voting mechanism. New Zealand’s parliament, for example, has a guaranteed native representation. Australia’s native population is quite small (relatively), but representation is almost accidental.

This would provide for large blocs of people - communities - get representation, without having to live in neighbouring streets.

Going beyond people, should corporations or charities, or organisations that represent special interest groups get representation within government, rather than being lobbyists? If they have any influence over politicians, then surely they should be a direct part of the policy-making process & skip the wasted effort of creating media attention to get their cause at the forefront of the elected officials’ minds.

I’m not talking about having all corporations or groups represented ‘democratically’, but bodies could be formed that allow for a different type of representation that has a different type of input into the parliamentary system, in the way that representatives of the people are supposed to bring the concerns of their constituents, & likewise the representatives of the states in the upper house.

In a two-party system where both of these houses are dominated by party politics, then it would have to be more effective to remove the one-up-man-ship & introduce issues as the primary focus of the agenda.
Are we mature enough to evolve our parliamentary system with the changing needs & advances in technology that allow us to be finer grained about the demographics within the electorate? Could we not add more dimensions to the governmental body that provides for people’s interests (vested interests, not past-times)?

We don’t need multiple houses, but we need collegiate discussion of policies for the good of the country - all of it. This can only occur when the elected do represent the people (however they arrive there). Otherwise, we get stuck in the past, fighting the same irrelevant idealisms from centuries long gone.

Left & right? It’s time we left it all behind & got on the right track for a truly democratic future.