Introduction
There exist many various definitions that describe the process of democracy. However, though similar to some extent, the definition depends on the teachings and principles of the subject in a particular context. The notion of democracy is applicable in many situations, especially where it involves handling a large number of people. It thus has come to be agreed that a broad definition of democracy is the rule of the majority through a system of representation of all by a smaller group, the power of which has been vested upon those whose possession and use is periodical. Change in the composition of the group and possession power is brought about by mutually agreed free and fair elections. The teachings of democracy in these modern times have been more reflected in elections where the level of fairness is used as a measure of democracy.
Governance as the rule of the people by the people has been more subjected to the teachings of democracy that have been adopted as a form of governance. Democracy in general faces many challenges and threats. But as a political system and form of governance, the threats are more amplified. In Australia, for example, various challenges and threats that are common the world over and others are unique to the country. Democracy as a political system makes some people question its actual presence. (Alexander, 2005, p.162) This paper is thus dedicated to identifying the various threats and discussing them in deep to have a better understanding of the issues at hand that face democracy in Australia.
Principles of democracy
Many writers have come to agree on the main principles of democracy. Castor (2006, pp.34) lists the following as the main categories.
- Majority rule and respect of the minority’s rights the l rule of law.
- Freedom of press and communication.
- Free and fair elections in electing of an executive power.
- Independence of the judicial system.
- Education and literacy for all.
Threats to democracy
Democracy has been a word utilized in many places that even do not recognize the real meaning of the word and its teachings/principles. In naming Australia as a fully democratic country, we overlook some of the issues that the political system has not addressed in attaining the full description of a democratic country (Adams, 2002, p. 118).
Economic democracy is one of the most affected types of democracies not in Australia alone but in the world all over. Economic democracy calls for the equitable distribution of all life’s necessities without discrimination whatsoever. (Mulgan, 2003, p.160) However, modern market conditions and economic instability plus deficiency of effective demand tend to contribute substantially to preventing the society from earning enough wages and salaries to enable the citizens to make purchases corresponding to their necessities. Inflation that is biting the country at the moment has made the affordability of these necessities a challenge to some extent. The necessary purchases in these modern times should include not only the basic wants but also the moderate luxuries common in life. This type of democracy, when threatened, will spill over to other kinds of democracies and hinder the implementation of the principles of democracy. Simply put, we see that this kind of situation where some are not able to afford basic necessities that others can afford in life adds up to poverty as a threat to democracy. (Emy, 2004, p. 78) Economic democracy calls for proper and equal distribution of purchasing power where the citizens of the country are given the chances to seek and increase their purchasing power through by means of providing job opportunities and a favorable environment to the citizens in order to create and gather wealth. Though employment rates in Australia have been very good, they have overshot the recommended level as per economists’ advice. The excessively high levels of employment are causing inflation as general prices are headed upwards and thereby depriving the poor in the society of their democratic rights in an economic sense. How these will affect the democratic aspect of the country’s political system may not be directly related though it adds up to weakening it. As it has been the trend in history, people attribute their economic problems to the political regime in power, blaming it on its inadequateness in improving the common man’s life and welfare (Colebatch, 2006, p. 156).
Shortcomings of Australian Democracy
The Australian political system can be considered democratic only in some ways. On the one hand, the interrelation between the electorate, Prime Minister, and Parliament can be considered democratic. On the other hand, there are some features which are undemocratic, such as federalism and bicameralism.
But democracy is not an absolute political value. It cannot ensure that all decision-making will guarantee justice for all the minorities, for example. Democracy cannot guarantee to produce wise decisions in the sphere of relations with other countries, establishing wise war and trade policies. It cannot ensure solving such burning problems like environmental questions and other aspects which will affect the interest of the next generations of Australians.
In the Australian Political system, there is one feature that cannot be considered democratic, that is, the division into numerous electorates. It presupposes that to make a decision, a majority of the most of majorities is needed. Every party may obtain the majority during the popular vote and at the same time may fail to get it in Parliament. It cannot be considered democratic, but still, we should not be pessimistic about this fact. As for subdivision into many electorates, it presents an obstacle for some self-interested coalitions. For instance, it prevents people who live in the biggest cities from voting themselves blatant favors. If this was not under control, finally everybody would move to one large population center, and after that, the older city areas which are in the center would unite against the newcomers who are on the fringes.
But on the other part, it impedes all possible changes, and some of these might be effective. This would mean that any group which is campaigning for a change must campaign in the greater part of the country. These groups cannot win by means of persuading the people nearest to them; their task is to gain a geographically dispersed majority. This causes more expense.
With the adoption of democracy as a political process in Australia, it becomes clear that as a country, Australia does not abide by the principles advocated for by real democrats. For example, the case of electing a Prime Minister is not delegated to the citizenry of the country but rather the parliamentarians. As someone to serve the common citizens in accordance with democratic principles, he should be directly elected by the people for a definite period of time as his actions affect the citizens themselves. The system’s failure and perpetual weakness is that Parliament is mandated to electing the Prime Minister who happens to serve the whole country and not the parliamentarians alone. In case of his failure, the citizens do not have the democratic right to push the Prime Minister in question out of office but remain as long as the parliamentarians have confidence in his occupancy of the seat. At the moment, our political system is labeled as democratic it allows the sitting Prime Minister to leave office quietly without Parliament necessarily holding an election. (Moyers, 2008, p.34) Though this does not happen frequently, it is legally recognized by the Constitution. As a nation, then our democratic right of electing our representative in the form of a prime minister is threatened and hindered by the Constitution, which governs us and ironically is the one responsible for protecting our democratic rights and of choosing our leaders.
Another front the senate features is one of the most undemocratic aspects of Australia’s political system, which is a violation of democratic principles. The government, in its service to the people, is supposed to protect its citizens from bad governance in that it’s handed the authority to govern by mutual trust. It, however, happens that the Senate can block any government decisions that might be intended in making life easier for the citizens in case the decision does not auger well with the senators. The only alternative the Prime Minister has in reiterating the refusal by Parliament to approve a bill is by dissolving it. As for the Prime Minister, the situation has much in common with Greek democracy: he/she implements policies that are supported by a majority of electors. (Hirst, 2002, p.116).
Common sense tells us that Parliamentarians never obstruct the Prime Minister who is supported by the majority of electors and, as a return to the ballot box, might see them thrown out of Parliament. If there is anything preventing the Prime Minister from appealing to the parliamentary electorate against the opposition of Parliament, it can be considered a deviation from democracy toward parliamentary oligarch where Parliament is used as a rubber stamp to the Prime Minister’s decisions. (Castor, 2006 pp. 289).
It is stated that federalism can be considered more democratic because it decentralizes power and makes it closer to the citizens. As for geographical closeness, it is not comparable to political integration and closeness both horizontally and vertically where the passing of information and consultation in passing and enacting of policies. The interest of the citizens in government doings depends on the power of government. Power is usually scrutinized when it is concentrated. On the other hand, decentralization may take some functions of government out of public view to lower levels where misappropriation of power and other vices can be perpetuated away from the public eye. (Patapan, 2000, p.78) Federalism is considered to be an undemocratic feature of any government system for some reason. Firstly, politics is made more difficult to follow, and in addition, it becomes difficult for voters to elect politicians fully accountable for their actions as they blame one another for any wrongdoings. (McGarvie 1999 pp. 58-65).
Again, to control the relations on different levels, the government needs a constitution which is not subject to the usual political process where duplication of processes and roles is probable. The Constitution then must be interpreted by a court. Against it, there is no appeal at the highest level. The Constitution just means whatever the court says. Such a court cannot be considered a democratic institution. Moreover, judges do not bear responses to electors. Actually, legal training expenses make courts conservative. What is more, legal costs are expensive. So the courts are usually in the long run; they interpret the Constitution in favor of those with money, thereby losing another teaching of democracy (Janda, 2006, 256).
There are undemocratic institutions in Australia, such as the Senate, which is an oligarchy to the staff. The staff are dominant in relation to their students. The similar situation can be seen in other educational establishments. And it cannot be viewed as democracy.
Conclusion
In conclusion I would like to say that in Australia there exists a kind of compromise between democracy and liberalism. It comprises an independent legal system and some independent institutions of higher learning.
The existing system can be controlled in many ways. It is important to improve the level of citizens’ intellectual culture; there should be more communication between representative panels and citizens (Cuff, 1998, p.112).
Australian democracy has long been dependent on the political ideas of different countries. But nowadays, it is stated that the glory days of Australian democracy are over and that the voters gradually become disillusioned with its concept. We may observe numerous criticisms of the existing state of democracy. In more general sense disrespect for parties and politicians is growing. I don’t think that we should be optimistic about the prospects of deepening democracy; too many factors need to be improved.
References
Adams, B. and Sydie, R., (2002) Classical Sociological Theory, (California Pine Forge, Thousand Oak, pp. 112, 120).
Alexander, D. (2005), Democracy: Choosing Australia’s Republic, (Melbourne, Clifford, pp. 125, 160).
Castor, Brian (2006), Limiting Democracy: The Erosion of Electoral Rights in Australia, (Sydney, Allen & Unwin, pp. 34- 289).
Colebatch, H. (2006), Beyond the policy cycle: The policy process in Australia, (Sydney, Allen & Unwin, pp. 145-150).
Cuff, E.C., and Francis, D. (1998) Perspectives in Sociology, (London, Routledge, pp. 112).
Emy, H.,(2004), Australian Politics: Realities in Conflict, (Adelaide, Winans, pp. 78, 98).
Hirst, John, (2002), Australia’s Democracy: A Short History, (Basingstoke, McMillan, pp. 110-116).
Janda, Kenneth (2006), The challenge of democracy, (London, OUP, pp. 256-285).
Mc Garvie Richard (1999), Democracy: Australia’s Republic, (Adelaide, Winans, pp. 44-67).
Moyers, Bill (2008), Moyers on democracy 1st ed, (Chicago, Doubleday, pg 34).
Mulgan, R., (2003), Holding Power to Account: Accountability in Modern Democracies, (Basingstoke McMillan, pg 129-136, 160-166).
Patapan, Haig (2000), Judging Democracy: The New Politics of the High Court of Australia, (London, Cambridge UP, pg 77, 208).