To this point I have not said anything, but I just thought I would point out
a couple of things about this ongoing "fingers in the pie" discussion about
A)president and B)A Bill of rights.
To save length I wont requote huge bits of past correspondonse, I just hope
you realise what, and who, I am refering to.
1. This idea that an appointed president will be less party political then
a directly elected pres.
To me, this is obviousally true. The idea of Howard appointing his mates,
which could techinically happen currently, would not hold under the
proposed republican model. The 2/3 here is a crucial factor -- unless one
party holds 2/3 of the seats, or minority parties hold considerable power
(possible, but I will ignore for now) -- both labour and the coalition would
have to agree (I am assuming of course that members vote along party lines).
This to me indicates that a party-political appointment is unlikely --
some sort of compromise would be need to be reached between the parties. On
the other hand, if the party in power holds 2/3 of the seats they have
obviousally recieved a considerable mandate, and the appointment may be
political but obviousally that is the mood of the time. (i am not happy with
this, but i believe it is still fair.)
A directly elected president IS likely to be party political. I believe I
can support this assertion. Just looking at referendums in the past most
people vote along party lines. This can be seen again and again. I believe
that the same principle would hold for a direclty elected president.
The allagation that...
>>>"There are many times when the rights of minorities or of the individual
>>>have to be upheld against the views of the majority. "Democracy" is fine
>>>for many purposes, but it can lead to tyranny
just as easily as any other system unless there are processes to prevent its
abuse. Look at the outpourings of the staunchly democratic "Bulletin"
magazine in the late 1800's if you want to see just how nasty democracy can
be to minority groups. We didn't have a "White Australia" policy for decades
beacuse of the wishes of power elites. We had it because it was politically
expedient - to advocate its overthrow invoked the wrath of the democratic
majority.
>>>>
Okay, I agree with the first comment more or less completely. The response
to this was
""But these are not the failings of democracy but the failings of
>>education and political will.""
I have a serious problem with this comment. The Failing of Democracy in
Australia IS that democracy assumes a politically interested and educated
population. This is simply not a reality. I know this is a sweeping
comment, but Australia on the whole is fairly a-political. The tendancy is
to follow party lines when a decision in the odd referendum (or direct
presidential elections) is held. Democracy is inextriciply (sp?) linked to
the people who it represents.. the voting community. We can not blame it on
the failings of education and political will.. they are the same thing as
the failing of democracy.
This is the prime reason I personally disagree with a directly elected
model. The Australian population, IN GENERAL, is not sufficently intrested
or educated to vote for the best Candiate. It could be argued of course,
that neither is parliament, but they most know SOMETHING to get that far.
(hee hee)
That said, I still believe strongly in democracy. This leads me to me
second point...
2. That an appointed president is somehow less democratic..
Nobody sofar has really gone into depth about this. But I would just like
to introduce it to the discussion, and say that I do not feel that my
democratic rights are being infringed by MY ELECTED REPRESENTITIVE making a
decision rather then a direct election.
3.This comparasin to Indonesia.
Okay, I take this point well... That we could run the risk of behind doors
deals of dodgy's politions..
There is however a huge difference between the Indonesian multi- party
system and Australia's two and a half party system. Argue over labels if
you want, but still, there is a huge difference.
I object to the argument that because Megawati Surkano's party holds more
seats it is somehow less democratic that she is not president. (sorry if I
have misquoted somebody here.. but that was my understanding of the
argument)
Megawati's party DID NOT HOLD A MAJORITY.. If Indonesians follow their
parties like Australians tend to (I am not sure that they do, but for
arguments sake) then MORE INDONESIANS WOULD PREFER WAHID AS THE PRESIDENT,
THEN MEGAWATI. I know that this argument is seriousally flawed, but I hope
you understand what I am trying (unsuccsessfully??) to get at. That just
because a party holds the largest number of seats, doesn't mean that the
candiate that party puts forward is the democratic choice.
At any rate, we are comparing peas and carrots and I dont know if I
understood the argument correctly to begin with.
Bringing this all back to the Bill of Rights, I feel that how the president
is elected in a republic will not change the Bill of Rights. Attack me on
this comment if you want, because I am not really sure.
Okay, I will try to suport his assertion -- I dont think it will happen
either way.
I think that Australia does need a Bill of Rights. However, I believe that
the current climate is not the one in which it would (should?) be
introduced. Their is not the will of the people (maybe you guys should work
on that) :-)
What I am saying basically, is that I think we need a Bill of Rights to
garantee certain fundamentals, and to ensure a "fair go" for all. However,
I see no way that a document can be agreed on. Their are too many powerful
influnces who wouldn't want one.
Of course, just because something is diffucult doesn't mean that it is wrong
and shouldn't be done.
Kind of like the republic really?
I think I have confused myself here, so I will go back to silent watcher
status...
By the way, I got a bit confused by all the lengthy messages as to who said
what, and I have commented on a few people's transcripts and opinions...
sorry if I have misquoted you or missunderstood, All these >>>>> kind of
mucked me up (!!).
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
