So South Australia just had a state election: Saturday 19 March 2022.
The state government comprises of members of two houses, the house of assembly, and the legislative council, It does not comprise of half the members of one house. I contend that it is incorrect to refer to the dominant political party as the government.
We have elected representatives of the people, distributed between a lower and upper house. from these representatives an executive council is selected to advise on the will of the government and execute the will of the government. The representatives are meant to determine the needs of the people. consider the constraints, reconcile conflicting requirements and debate the suitability of alternative solutions, so as to determine the will of the people. But this doesn't happen.
Liberal has lost and Labor has won. How can that be? Before the current election the house of assembly comprised of members of the Liberal party and the Labor party. The house of assembly still comprises of members of the Liberal and Labour parties: so no real change to the government.
Labor will blame Liberal for the current purported mess. They will proceed to dismantle systems implemented by the Liberals, and then proceed to implement their own systems. In a few years the population will get disenchanted and supposedly throw Labor out and put the Liberals back. The process of dismantling and implementing will start again. It is all extremely wasteful.
Labour occupied the house of assembly at the same time as the Liberals, if the systems the Liberals wanted to implement were not in the best interests of the people then why didn't Labor stop them, right there and then? If they claim because they couldn't, then why not? If Liberals just out vote them and push policy through, then the Labor MP's were a waste of space, not required, just send them home, and don't pay them, Similarly the Liberal MP's are now a waste of space, so likewise send them home and don't pay them.
That however is not how the system is meant to work. There is supposed to be real debate, we are not supposed to have a short term dictatorship. Such hijacking of the government, and dictatorship is a function of the political parties it is not part of the constitution, and I contend it is not an acceptable operation of our government. The journalists talk about the two party preferred. How can we have two party preferred? We clearly vote for multiple parties not just two. The problem we have is the two parties and a lack of diversity in the government and consequently lack of due and proper representation of the people. An election which merely changes which side of the floor, Labor and the Liberals, sit is a joke. These two political parties need kicking out off both houses of the government.
The problem is the other political parties are generally not taken seriously as they only have a single idea, radical philosophies, stupid names or no policies. There is also a misconception that a party needs to have policies. We do not really need a government: we just need to approve transfer of funds from the treasury to the government departments and continue service as usual. The peoples representatives only need to be called upon to deal with exceptions, constraints, shortages, and emergencies. That is the government needs to be dynamically adaptive and respond to change. Therefore not interested in the policies, political parties have before an election, only interested in how they will respond to the circumstances they encounter.
I suggest no political party should have more than 20% of the seats, so that we require at least 5 political parties to be voted into the government. The members of the executive council can be selected from the lower and upper houses and across all political parties: because they all constitute the government and the executive councils task is merely to advise on the will of the government, and execute the will of the government. It is not the task of the executive council to impose its will on the government.
But since we don't have a rule, just have to play the game. So can create 5 neutral political parties, say peoples representatives team 1 to 5, abbreviated to PR-T1 to PR-T5. The only policies these parties have is to maintain the status quo and implement change only if it is necessary and justified. The change being determined on an as needs basis. If all 5 parties get elected then funds are merely approved for transfer from the treasury to the government departments and operations continue as usual. They then get on with dealing with the exceptions.
In the first instance the traditionalists will continue to vote for the party their ancestors voted for, and they will mostly do so with out thought, unlike their ancestors who choose sensibly. Those who swing between Labor and the Liberals shouldn't, this is what causes the inefficiency. It is better to pick a third party, if no suitable party then pick one of the neutral parties.
When the Australian Democrats were around, their presence in the upper house, meant that neither of the two major parties dominated the upper house, and therefore a bill could not be passed unless the democrats were on side. The displacement of the democrats by the Greens, has changed things. The Greens have relatively radical uncompromising viewpoints with respect to the environment, they do not act as moderator.
The purpose of the upper house is to interrogate a bill and determine if it truly is in the best interests of the people, that passing the bill into legislation truly reflects the will of the people. Or conclude that they are incapable of assessing the will of the people and that maybe a referendum needs to be held. If a referendum is required then we can conclude that the members of the houses are not true representatives of the people, and need to be replaced. At the same time it is also necessary to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. If there is proper debate in the two houses, and actually operating with intent to determine the needs of the people and solve problems, then the potential for tyranny should be low.
We don't get proper debate, instead we get two bickering sides. Neither side is competent at debate, or speech. To start with they don't write their own public speeches: marketing and public relations specialists write the speeches, so how can we expect them to contribute in any meaningful way to a debate. The two houses are the battlefield and the weapons of war are words. If there are 3 or more parties in each of the houses, then have many divergent viewpoints, but may avoid a bipolar split. With 5 parties in the house, then 3 parties are required to cooperate to achieve a majority vote. Thus either the 3 neutral parties, or 2 neutral parties and one major party cooperate to a achieve passing of a bill.
It is to be noted that the members of the neutral parties should be specifically educated and trained to question and interrogate proposals put before them, and identify the flaws in the proposals. They are diplomats and excel at diplomacy. They are the monarchs of philosophy (philosopher kings). They seek to solve problems not adopt ideology. It is thus possible for 5 or more such parties to be formed and to prove themselves before an election.
We have open government, debates can be observed and they are recorded and reported. New political parties, non-government organisations (NGO) and lobby groups can be created, and they can publicly question and interrogate the decisions of the government. They can educate the population on the operation of our government and the flaws in its operation. The government can be held to account, the political parties can be held to account, and the peoples representatives can be held to account. The newly formed neutral political parties (NPP) can act as political commentators, and question the competence of the members of the two houses to provide due and proper representation of the people.
Whilst it is good that anyone can be representative of the people, it doesn't mean that they have the capability to effectively represent the people. Such people maybe better off, finding appropriate skilled people and putting such people forward, whilst they themselves take a back seat.
Point is political parties, cabinets and shadow cabinets do not have anything to do with the legal definition of our government. The political parties are simply sustained by their presence and the flawed reporting of journalists. I say flawed reporting because Labor may have won the election, but they are not the government, and Liberal was not the government before them. We should hold the government accountable and that means all political parties with members in the two houses.
References:
Related Posts
Revisions:
[23/02/2022] : Original
