Dangerous democracy

Democracy is a great threat to those who have or seek power.

Democracy is a tussle for power. The slow move to fuller enfranchisement, the right to vote from adult men holding property to all adult men over 21, later to include women and most recently to reduce the voting age to 18 years. Each broadening of franchise increased the threats to privilege.

In Australia, the move to compulsory voting was significant in that voter turnout was low, leading to a lack of confidence in government, that it was for ‘the elite’, but with the introduction of compulsory voting, the results were more readily accepted and confidence in the integrity of the vote and the accountability of representatives improved. Each step along the way saw a shift in power, spreading the ability to vote, to having a voice to more and more of the citizenry.

But at the base of the system there needs to be trust in the candidates running for office.

In her study of the 1872 state election in Louisiana, ‘America’s deadliest election’ (Hanover Square Press, 2024), Dana Bash quotes Mark Twain where he states ‘In truth I care little about any party politics, the man behind is the important thing.’ (Page 283) Mark Twain cared about integrity in politics.

The election studied in the book saw over 4,000 people killed in a power struggle after the Civil War, a struggle for white power over a true democracy, which could well have resulted in another civil war. A democratic system which had worked for a hundred years almost collapsed. Trust had vanished in the aftermath of the Civil War, with the diminution of privilege of the white people as the former slaves were empowered with voting rights.

Democracy in the US was the earliest of the emerging move to changing the political order in much of the colonial world, the first where the franchise was made to include the enslaved and under privileged and the results of the conflict saw the emergence of Jim Crow laws in the southern states and the value of a ‘black’ vote to be less that that of a white man.

The struggle between the privileged and less privileged continues in the US as we witness some of the wealthiest people in the world take control of both the political system and the economy, impacting not just within the US but rippling through geo-political and world economic and trade systems. It is a struggle between the haves and the have nots. The struggle is one of greed and power. There is no sense of the philosophic struggle of the ‘isms’ of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the tussle between the industrialists and workers, the power of inherited positions of privilege against the serfs and peasants of the agricultural past, the rise of nationalism and definitions of citizenry.

The important philosophic questions of what it means to govern a population, who is to be empowered, who pays the way, who is worthy of the positions of service in government. Government of the people, for the people, by the people.

And therein lie the questions of integrity.

Who can we trust to represent us in those positions of power, who can we trust to deliver for the population, for the nation, for even the least of its citizens?

Who can we trust to consider each citizen as equal?

The question of equality is important since we have a number of very wealthy people who consider themselves more than equal, we have people who adhere to one faith or another who place themselves in moral judgement over others in matters such as abortion rights, assisted dying, the right to marry whom we choose and other ‘moral’ issues. More equal in the sight of their god, more equal than unbelievers.

The question of integrity seems to be totally missing in American politics, the gradual level of distrust, the lack of any sense of thoughtful politics, of policy making which has true democratic basis has been replaced with sloganeering and a continual push for more from those who already have the most, a gradual push to assert a distorted view of judgemental Christianity on the whole population, and the submission to that religious lobby in supporting genocide in Israel/Palestine. A quest for domineering power, not just within the USA bu also influencing politics and economies throughout the world.

We are facing an election soon. Most likely in May.

Dare we apply the blow-torch of integrity on our politicians?

I really believe we should.

In some ways, I test politicians who stand in seats where they will represent me in the various governmental forums, whether Federal, State or in Local government.

I ask whether the candidates adhere to any faith, whether it be Christian, Islam, Jewish, or any other and how that will affect their stance in raising issues and voting on legislations, in making laws. Some bother to respond, and I respect that, and respect the opportunity to discuss those issues openly.

I believe that is an important question, since there are parties who are decidedly, openly faith based, such as the Christian Party. The other parties are not faith based, and the expectation would be that they will raise issues and vote on legislation which does not discriminate on matters that are faith related, such as abortion rights, voluntary assisted dying, gay and equal marriage rights and so forth.

We do see, particularly in the Liberal Party, candidates being endorsed who do discriminate on faith-based issues. I believe that demonstrates a lack on integrity. The Liberal Party is not a faith-based party, it is sectarian, it should support legislation that respects all Australians. I recall a discussion on gay marriage which concluded with my assertion that no one was going to force the man I was discussing this with to marry a man.

Likewise, if a Muslim candidate were to support making laws which follow Sharia Law, if they were of a sectarian party, I would call them out. If however they were of an Islamic party, I may enter into discussion, but would stress that I could not support them because they would discriminate against my faith, or lack of faith. Campaigning under a faith-based banner demonstrates integrity, and allows the voter to vote accordingly.

When it comes to questions of equality, I demand that all people be considered equal.

The only difference between a wealthy person and a poor person is wealth, that does not make the wealthy person more than equal, it just makes them richer. As such, when we look at government, when we look at the philosophic underpinning of democracy, that it is ‘government of the people, for the people, by the people’, the term ‘people’ applies equally to a person who has no property and is dependent on handouts for survival as it does for the Gina Rineharts and Twiggy Forrests of the world. Or any other ‘mover and shaker’ captain of industry or born to wealth and privilege person.

That the taxation system favours the wealthy over those with less wealth, I see as an abomination which needs to be redressed, and would love to see the slogan on the back of a One Nation campaign tee shirt brought to reality… ‘We have the guts to say what you are thinking’, so next government, have the guts to enact taxation reforms which reflect what the majority of ordinary wage and salary earners are thinking, tax the rich, have them pay their way, tax the banks who make incredibly large profits, tax the supermarkets who are ripping off their customers. (I doubt very much that the One Nation people wearing the shirt had any idea of what I was thinking then, or even now. They won’t be part of the government, but I do call on who ever comes to win in May heeds this request.)

Integrity in politics would surely mean looking after the least of our citizens. It is unbelievable that unemployment benefits, sorry, job-seeker payments are below what can be considered adequate to survive on, and recent suicides point to that. Consider please an adequate payment for those in greatest need.

Integrity would surely give equal opportunity for those who aspire to a University education. The high cost of tertiary education needs to be addressed. A young person entering university this year, studying for four or five years can be burdened with a HECS debt which will take years to repay at a time when that person is considering their career as well as planning marriage and a family, mortgage, children, planning a life, which is held back by the debt where those who are from the most privileged of families can afford the fees. The system entrenches elitism, it entrenches privilege.

Democracy is dangerous, especially for those who are used to power, who consider themselves to be just that little bit better, that little bit more worthy than others. In conversation this morning I discussed equality with a friend. He is Polish and a student of history. (He is also an amazing musician, able to make any stringed instrument sing unimaginable melodies.) He told a story of a feudal society in pre-communist Poland, where a land lord had to give permission for marriage of the peasants he ‘owned’. He took the right to sleep with the bride before he handed her over to the groom. Similar stories come from the peasantry of India and other places.

At times, people have been ‘owned’, they came with the land the estate covered. Democracy threatened the ‘right’ of owning people, it threatened the sense of superiority of the white slave-owning class of the southern states of the USA, it threatens the right of corporations to pay their employees fair wages, it threatens the privilege of minimising taxation liabilities. The list of threats to the privileged is a long one.

Democracy is only dangerous when citizens are not treated as equal, that some how, one voice, one person is far more important, far more vocal, far more ‘entitled’ than the lesser others.

So let’s hold the blowtorch to the political candidates and their parties to see whether we can get a truly democratic democracy.

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969