The democratic paradox

Brian McNair (Queensland University of Technology) explains that there is no necessary connection between liberalism and democracy. Our democracy is increasingly enabling the expression of illiberal, demagogic, populist viewpoints on key issues of our time such as migration and multiculturalism. The most accessible and easy to use communicative environment human beings have ever enjoyed is also one of political extremes in which he, or she who shouts loudest gets heard by the most people.

Ruling, not governing – our politicians have little time or respect for policy

Peter van Onselen (University of Western Australia) and Wayne Errington (University of Adelaide) write in The Conversation that the present generation of leaders has expert knowledge about communicating, campaigning and focus groups but little time or respect for the best traditions of government: the patient development of policy formulated with the assistance of a professional public service. The pursuit of government for the sake of power outweighs the purpose for achieving it.

The ‘will of the people’ is the bastardisation of democracy

Jean-Paul Gagnon (Australian Catholic University) and Mark Chou (Australian Catholic University) explain in The Conversation that, if politicians are serious about acting on the “will of the people”, then reforming Australia’s electoral system should be on the agenda. Otherwise, phrases which invoke "the will of the people" are simply hubris designed to delegitimise their opponents both within parliament and more broadly, and to shut down debate. For democracy to work properly, it requires voters and their representatives to work together to achieve the most palatable ends for Australians.

Political Amnesia – How We Forgot How To Govern

Nicholas Barry (La Trobe University) reviews Laura Tingle's essay in The Conversation. He highlights that debate, serious discussion and deliberation are valued highly in a democracy not just for their own sake, but because they are considered essential to testing the quality of ideas and arguments. Increasingly, decision-makers in Canberra and beyond seem to have forgotten this age-old lesson of democratic politics. The quality of policymaking in Australia may be strengthened if they begin to remember it.

How the ‘fair go’ became the last bulwark for Australia’s freedoms

Gillian Triggs (University of Sydney, Human Rights Commission) writes in The Conversation that successive governments and political leaders since 2001 have played on community fears of terrorism and the unauthorised entry of refugees to concentrate power in the hands of the executive – to the detriment of Australian liberty. Most Australians are unlikely to be able to describe the doctrine of the separation of powers, but they’re quick to assert their liberties under the rubric of a ‘fair go’.

Unwritten rules shape ministerial accountability

Ryan Goss (Australian National University) writes in The Conversation that Australia’s constitutional system is built on the assumption that all ministers will be responsible to the parliament and, through the parliament, responsible to the Australian people. But there’s no precise legal statement of how that assumption works, what it covers, and what happens if the ministers are not sufficiently responsible. It’s incumbent on all of us, as citizens in a democratic society, to ensure that our representatives hold our government to account.

We all have a role in protecting democracy’s unwritten rules

Danielle Celermajer (University of Sydney) explains in The Conversation that our democracy is only safeguarded by informal conventions and the robustness of our political culture. When the actions and words of our leaders model an ethos where political differences are more important than democratic conventions, we’re all enfeebled.

Mutated conventions: how secrecy in the name of security harms democracy

Jude McCulloch (Monash University) writes in The Conversation that secrecy is a weapon of information control that valorises official stories and outlaws those who expose governments and police and security agencies to scrutiny.

Yes minister: how political appointments tip the scales of fearless advice

Chris Aulich (University of Canberra) writes in The Conversation that the public service has gradually become more politicised in recent years. But this is a bigger problem for agencies broadly described as integrity agencies and for bodies where public perception of neutrality are important to their operations.