Liberal Democracy: Political Rights and Duties

Liberal Democracy:
Accountability, Political Rights and Duties

	6.1 Historical Background, Republicanism and the Use of History
	6.2 The Westminster Model, Responsibility and Representation
	6.3 The Constitution and Parliamentary Sovereignty
	6.4 Executive Accountability in Parliament
	6.5 The Role of the Senate and Responsible Government Today
	6.6 Democracy, Elections and Compulsory Voting

In previous weeks you examined the evolution of citizens rights, the history of responsible government and the concept of the rule of law in Australia. Your objective for this week is to gain an understanding of how Australian governments are held accountable to the citizens who elect them, and of the role of citizens in this process. In particular, you will explore further the emergence of a unique Australian liberal democracy from a combination of the Westminster model of responsible government and the American model of federalism. The blending of these two traditions has direct implications for the way in which governments are held accountable to the electorate. In practice, federalism means that state and Commonwealth governments have separate responsibilities, and that Australians elect members to represent them at three different levels of democratic institutions, local, state and federal. Of particular interest is that Australia is one of few liberal democracies which make voting compulsory and you will be asked to consider arguments for and against this practice. You will also consider a radical criticism of liberal democracy that claims that voting in elections severely limits democratic participation and that other methods are needed. A recurring issue throughout the week is that of arguments for and against our constitutional monarchy.

1.Historical Background, Republicanism and the Use of History

The Australian system of parliamentary democracy is a form of liberal democracy. That is, the people themselves do not govern, but their elected representatives in parliament govern on their behalf. Liberal democracy is a form of indirect or representative democracy in which limits are placed upon the power of government by various institutional checks and balances such as the separation of powers. In many respects, the state and Commonwealth parliaments are based upon what is known as the 'Westminster model'. Gordon Reid gives a brief account of the institutional context which influenced the Australian model of government.

STUDY EXERCISE 6.1

Read:G.S. Reid, 1968. Australia's Commonwealth parliament and the 'Westminster model'. pp. 109—12.

Answer the following questions:

1.According to Reid's account, what institutional characteristics defined the British political system for Australians? Answer

2.What values did Reid think that the Commonwealth Parliament symbolised for Australians? Answer

One of the main points to note in Reid's introductory paragraphs on Australia's colonial parliaments is that self-government was attained through peaceful means and by negotiation with the British government. There was no war of independence and therefore no rejection of British institutions, such as the monarchy. Instead, the new colonial governments were modelled on those of Britain. It is also worth remembering at this point, that the colonial parliaments predated the federal compact by many years and that colonial interests and institutions were often predominant. When the various colonies united in 1901, their governments were reluctant to hand over too many powers to a federal government. This history explains in part the significance of states' rights in the Australian political system.

Reid (1968) also points out another significant historical feature, namely, that parliament has had great symbolic significance, especially for the close ties between Australia and the United Kingdom. Here, we need to consider one of the changes that have occurred in the years since Reid's article was written. An official account of the history and symbolism in the new Parliament House opened in 1988, is given in the booklet Australia's Parliament House.

Australia's Parliament House is a symbol of national unity and commitment to the democratic process of government. The building, its integrated works of art, craft and furnishings reflect the history, cultural diversity, development and aspirations of Australia. Together they project the image and spirit of the nation. (Joint House Department 1989: 2)

Indeed, the issue of cultural diversity is one of the reasons advanced for rejecting the monarchy. For many of those Australians who argue for a republic, the symbolism of links with Britain and the Crown is meaningless to immigrants from non-English speaking backgrounds. The issue of national identity is often central to the debates over republicanism as the following brief statements indicate.

Read:Australian Republican Movement. 1997. The republic. Australian 28 May: 13, and Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. 1997. The monarchy. Australian 28 May: 13.

Recent arguments about Australian democracy are often set in the context of controversy over whether Australian should remain a constitutional monarchy or become a republic. It is important to note, however, that the Australian republican debate is primarily focused upon the relatively narrow issue of whether or not to discard a constitutional monarchy and the potential institutional consequences of so doing. With few exceptions, the major disputants do not take up the broader concerns of civic republicanism raised in the Week 3.

The following readings by Turnbull and Barwick indicate how historical facts are used for different purposes in the contemporary political debate over republicanism. Both readings will serve to review the main features of liberal democracy and responsible government in Australia. Malcolm Turnbull, who is chairman of the Australian Republican Movement, makes a number of key historical points in support of his argument for an Australian republic. He points to the colonial origins of the Australian constitution and the various steps along the path to Australian independence from the United Kingdom.

Read:M. Turnbull, 1994. How Britannia ruled our constitution. Australian 29 July: 13.

In his argument for a constitutional monarchy and against a republic, Sir Garfield Barwick sets out clearly the origins of responsible government and indicates a number of the major problems confronting the role of parliamentary democracy. Barwick, who was a Liberal Attorney General and Foreign Minister and later became a long serving Chief Justice of Australia, puts Australian democracy into a somewhat conservative historical perspective.

Read:G. Barwick, 1995. Democracy too precious for political tinkering. Australian 3 April: 11.

Where both Turnbull and Barwick agree on the colonial origins of the Commonwealth Constitution, they diverge over the merits of this heritage. For Turnbull, the fact that our constitution was 'not a birth certificate for a nation, but rather a practical rule book for a colony' is a good reason for its reform. For Barwick, the British political institutions, adopted during colonial times and developed nationally after federation, already deliver all the practical benefits of a republic. Like many others, Barwick, thinks that certain kinds of republican reform are more likely to cause more political division than the option of retaining the monarchical status quo.

Elsewhere in his article, Barwick takes up arguments about protecting individual rights under the common law and is critical of the role of the High Court for usurping the power of parliament in such matters. For Barwick, the more important political task is that of recovering the authority and sovereignty of parliament. These readings suggest that, whatever one's political commitment to constitutional monarchy or republic, there are other issues which are just as important for the health of Australian democracy. For example, we need to consider in more detail how well the parliament and government of Australia meets the objectives of responsible government. One question here concerns the extent to which Australian institutions are modelled on the 'Westminster' model derived from the United Kingdom.

2.The Westminster Model, Responsibility and Representation

The characteristics of the Westminster model, which became the common denominator in both state and federal parliaments are:

(a) a bi-cameral Parliament in which
(b) one house at least is wholly elected and
(c) the government, which is drawn from the Parliament, is accountable to the elected house.

A bi-cameral parliament is one that comprises two houses. (Queensland, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are exceptions). Australian bi-cameralism follows the British model where the House of Commons is elected, and the hereditary House of Lords, with much weaker powers, operates as a house of review. The colonial parliaments generally followed this pattern of an elected house and one which was appointed or elected by property owners, with government accountable to the elected house. If a government could not command a majority of votes in the Lower House of parliament on motions of confidence, it resigned.

The Commonwealth Constitution, however, drawing as it does on American federalism, created two elected houses with almost equal powers. This feature raises some interesting issues regarding accountability in the modern Australian context. Some writers, following Westminster precedents, maintain that governments only require the confidence of the House of Representatives. This house is often designated 'the people's house' because its members are elected from electorates, which are numerically fairly equal. This arrangement contrasts significantly with the Senate, to which each state, whatever its population, elects 12 senators (the territories send two each). Other commentators argue that a government should resign if the Senate rejects a money bill. Depending on one's point of view, this situation represents either a serious unresolved contradiction between the principles of responsible government and the principles of federalism or it illustrates the way in which institutions and processes of government are continually evolving to meet new situations.

Finally, in the Westminster model, the government is drawn solely from the parliament. In British based systems, the Prime Minister and cabinet sit in the parliament or legislative chamber. Compare this with the American system where Presidents are elected directly by the people and choose a cabinet from outside the legislature. Neither the President nor those in cabinet are members of the Congress. There is a very clear separation of the executive, legislative and judicial arms of government. As we saw in Study Week 3, the authors of the American constitution were afraid of the accumulation of centralised government power. In order to prevent centralisation they designed a system of checks and balances based on the doctrine of the separation of powers. One of the major criticisms (cf Barwick 1995) of Westminster systems is that parliaments are now so dominated by the executive, or ministry, that they have difficulty in making governments accountable.

Another reason for the dominance of the executive is due to the 'partisan' model of representation that is now predominant. Bear in mind that there are a number of models of how representation of citizens interests ought to be achieved in a liberal democracy. Several of these you encountered in Study Week 3. One model argues that representatives should act as 'delegates' who reflect the opinions of the majority in their electorate, although this may be difficult to ascertain on a series of issues. Another, the 'trustee' model, advocated by Edmund Burke suggests that delegates should listen to the arguments of various groups, including their constituents, but vote according to their own conscience, taking into account the best interests of the nation In practice, both models have been eclipsed by a 'partisan' model, whereby parliamentarians vote according to the directives of their party.

3.The Constitution and Parliamentary Sovereignty

There are crucial differences between the operation of Australian parliaments and the 'ideal' Westminster model. A major departure from the British Constitution is the limitation of the Commonwealth Parliament's sovereignty, by:

(a) the enumeration of its powers in the constitution, and
(b) the High Court's jurisdiction over challenges to the constitutionality of Commonwealth Acts.

Australia and Britain are both constitutional democracies. As we saw in Study Week 2, constitutionalism has its roots in the liberal reaction to royal absolutism and the belief that citizen's rights should be guaranteed against the actions of arbitrary government. Australia and Britain differ, however, in that the British Constitution is 'unwritten' and is indistinguishable from any other kind of public law. The British Constitution has evolved as a disparate collection of written statutes and unwritten conventions or practices over centuries, and it continues to change in response to political circumstances. At any time, the British Parliament can legislate to change the constitution. In other words, the Parliament at Westminster is truly sovereign which means that it is the supreme political authority in the United Kingdom. Because of the constraints of the written constitution and the role of the High Court, the Australian federal parliament is not sovereign and must share its power.

In establishing a federal system of government, the Australian constitution divides powers between the states and the Commonwealth. If you read Sections 51 and 52 of the Australian Constitution you will see that the Commonwealth parliament has the power to legislate in specified areas such as customs and excise, defence, currency and external affairs. These are often called the enumerated powers. There are also concurrent powers on which both state and Commonwealth parliaments can legislate, although in the event of a conflict, the Commonwealth legislation prevails. The residual powers or those remaining lie with the state parliaments and the Commonwealth cannot easily override them. (We shall consider one way in which this has occurred through the use of treaties and the 'external affairs' power in the final Study Week 13)

The federal parliament's sovereignty is further limited by the fact that the High Court can overturn legislation if it finds that it is unconstitutional. The High Court has two main functions. It is the final court of appeal in the Australian judicial system and it adjudicates in disputes between states and between states and the Commonwealth. Note that the right to appeal to the British Privy Council from federal courts was abolished in 1975 and from state supreme courts in 1986 (Turnbull 1994). There is also a provision for constitutional amendment by means of referendum. In order for a constitutional referendum to succeed, however, a majority of voters and a majority of states must approve it. The requirement for this double majority has made it difficult for constitutional amendments to be passed (See Lovell et al. 1995: 34-5). As we saw in Study Week 4, the referendum is an example of direct democracy and some Australians would like to see its use expanded. This would allow citizens, rather than the government, to initiate referenda. Those in favour point to an increase in citizen participation, whilst those opposed, including the major parties, see citizens initiated referenda as costly and potentially divisive.

Although the Australian constitution is a written document, it by no means provides a complete picture of government and politics in Australia. The authors of the constitution assumed that the principles of responsible government inherited from Britain would continue to apply within the federal framework established by the written constitution. The constitution makes no mention of Prime Minister, cabinet and political parties (apart from a brief reference in the 1977 constitutional amendment). On the other hand, if you read Section 62 which deals with the office of the Governor General you will gain the impression that the Governor General exercises substantial political authority. By convention or political tradition, however, the Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Nonetheless, in 1975, the Governor General, Sir John Kerr, refused the advice of the Prime Minister and dismissed him. During the later part of 1975, the Senate delayed passage of the government's budget (supply bills), so depriving it of essential funds with which to govern. This conflict developed into a 'constitutional crisis' that led the Governor General to dismiss the Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and replace him with the Liberal Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, who agreed to pass the budget and call a double dissolution election. There still remains some uncertainty about the power of the Governor General and critics would like to see the constitution changed in order to clarify the situation. The more radical or maximalist republicans favour the option of codifying or specifying the powers of the Governor General.

4.Executive Accountability in Parliament

In the next reading, John Summers explains further a number of the issues raised above. In particular, he examines how Australia's federal democracy operates in practice. He reiterates the notion of responsible government explained in earlier weeks, but Summers is critical of its application in Australia. He demonstrates how parliament has little ability to hold the executive responsible for its actions. Summers explains that one of the key features of the Westminster system is that the executive be drawn from inside the Parliament. Yet, it is precisely this feature that leads to the strong tendency for the executive to dominate the Parliament. This overlap of the executive and the legislature in Australia can be compared with the clear separation of the arms of American government between the President and the Congress.

STUDY EXERCISE 6.2

Read:J. Summers, 1997 Parliament and responsible government. In D. Woodward, A. Parkin and J. Summers, Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia, pp. 22—31.

Answer these questions:

1.Summers identifies two types of parliamentary responsibility. Briefly explain each of these types of responsibility. Answer

2.What does Summers mean by 'responsible party government'? Answer

A key feature of Australian political life is that party discipline in parliament is very strong. 'Crossing the floor' to vote with the Opposition is rare and usually results in the MP being deprived of party endorsement in future election and being unable to regain their seat. Governments with a majority can rest assured that party members in the parliament will usually vote as a bloc on any issue. Because of this party discipline, members of the party or parties with the majority in the House of Representatives will almost always vote automatically in support of government legislation. This means that the lower house in the Commonwealth Parliament is 'well and truly under the thumb of government' (Reid 1968).

This political feature raises questions about government accountability. The Westminster model of responsible government holds that ministers ought to be individually and collectively responsible for their actions to parliament, and through parliament, to the people, who, if dissatisfied with their performance, can vote them out of office. Individual ministers must account to parliament for their actions and for the actions of the public servants under their control. According to Westminster convention, they must resign if they, or their departmental officers, make substantial errors. Ministers are also collectively responsible to the parliament for cabinet decisions. This means that ministers are expected to maintain a united front in public even if within the cabinet room they have disagreed with a decision. If they cannot do so, they are expected to resign.

In order to make governments accountable, parliaments require mechanisms by which to scrutinise the actions of government, but as many writers have pointed out, successive Australian governments have manipulated parliamentary procedures in order to ensure government domination and control. For example, Standing Orders, which are the formal rules that order the daily working of parliament, have long favoured the government of the day which is able to use its majority to 'gag' debate, or to cut off debate by applying the 'guillotine'. That is, the procedural rules and the cloak of 'Westminster' have been used to enhance governmental power. Over the years, however, the parliamentary committee system has expanded providing the opportunity for backbenchers to scrutinise government budgets and legislation. The Senate committees have generally been more effective than those in the House. (For a recent critique of parliamentary accountability, read Dean Janet 1997. 'The Impact of Party'.)

There are a few additional Australian variations on the Westminster model, which further prevent adequate scrutiny of government. For example, the Speaker in Australian parliaments is a partisan figure who, on procedural matters, habitually rules in favour of the government. Note also the other difference from the Westminster model. Whereas in the United Kingdom the ministers work from within their departments, in Canberra, they work out of offices in Parliament House. Some analysts have suggested that the Australian practice bolsters bureaucratic power, because ministers, physically distant from their senior public servants, may have little knowledge of the workings of their departments, for which, according to the Westminster model, they are responsible.

Westminster systems make a distinction made between policy making, which is the function of government, and policy implementation, which is the function of a politically neutral public service. Public servants are accountable for their actions through the minister to the parliament and thence to the public. In practice, however, it is not possible to make a clear distinction between policy making and policy implementation. This suggests a further criticism of the Westminster model in that it does not make public servants sufficiently accountable for their actions. In an attempt to do so, mechanisms such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Ombudsman have been grafted on to the parliamentary system. Citizens can take their complaints about unfair ministerial and administrative decisions to these bodies as well as to their parliamentary representatives.

So far, we have traced the contributions of both the Westminster model of responsible government and the federal model to the Australian political system. The overriding theme of most critics of liberal democracy in Australia is their emphasis upon the domination of parliament by the executive, or government. For an alternative perspective, read 'Parliament' by Rodney Smith (1994).

5.The Role of the Senate and Responsible Government Today

So far, you have been concentrating on Australia's debts to Westminster, but Australia's system of government also owes a debt to its colonial heritage and American federalism. As we have seen, upper houses had a significant place in the operation of colonial democracy, so it was hardly surprising the Australian Constitution provided for a powerful upper house. When the Australian colonies joined together to form the Commonwealth of Australia, they did not want to give up all their powers and separate identities. The states wanted their interests safeguarded and the Senate was the chosen mechanism. There is also a nexus provision in the constitution, which ensures that the Senate remains at half the numerical size of the House of Representatives. This mechanism aims to ensure that any increase in the number of seats for the House of Representatives must be matched proportionally by an increase in seats in the Senate. These features are part of the 'price' Australia paid for securing the federation; a strong upper house as the protector of States' rights. As a result, the Senate has dual functions: as a House of review and as a States' House.

In practice, although the Senate does operate as a 'house of review', it does not function as a States' House. The senators vote, not as state representatives, but as party representatives. Read carefully the section of the constitution dealing with the Senate's powers. Although the Senate cannot initiate or amend money bills, it can reject or delay them as it did in 1975. Also read Section 57 of the constitution to find out about the mechanism for a double dissolution.

In the following reading, Summers examines the role of the Australian Senate and asks whether a powerful Senate, that is not controlled by the government, adds or detracts from principles of responsible government.

STUDY EXERCISE 6.3

Read:J. Summers, 1997. Parliament and responsible government. In D. Woodward, A. Parkin and J. Summers, Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia, pp. 32—40.

Answer these questions:

1.In what ways might a strong Senate enhance responsible government? Answer

2.In what ways might a strong Senate diminish responsible government? Answer

After the introduction of proportional representation for Senate elections in 1949, there occurred a 'revival' of the Senate. This increase in political power and status is partly explained by the fact that it is very unlikely a government will be able to secure more than 50% of the seats in the Senate and so have a workable majority. Since the events surrounding the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975, the profile and influence of the Australian Senate has risen even further. For most of the past 20 years minor parties and independent Senators have held the balance of power in the Senate. This situation has often forced both Labor and Coalition governments into long and complex negotiations with a handful of Senators who are able to determine the passage of the government's legislative program through Parliament. In addition to the examples mentioned by Summers, in 1998 there occurred a two-week period during which the Prime Minister negotiated with the Tasmanian Independent Senator Brian Harradine, in order to get the government's amendments to the Native Title Bill passed by the Senate.

While it may appear fundamentally undemocratic for a single Senator, elected on a very low primary vote, to determine the implementation of a government's policies, we need to consider whether the election of independents and candidates from the minor parties to the Senate is part of a wider pattern. As Summers shows in Figure 2.1, the proportion of the primary vote going to these candidates has increased considerably. This may indicate that a growing proportion of Australian voters is deliberately endeavouring to increase the ability of the Senate to influence the activities of the government. This in turn may indicate Australians are dissatisfied with the operation, or lack of operation of responsible government in which an executive, bound by party discipline, is able to treat the parliament with contempt. For to do so, is to treat citizens with similar contempt.

For those who see the role of representative institutions as offering restraint upon the excesses of governmental authority the Senate offers the main hope in Australia. Although many commentators point out the frustration and resentment of governments who cannot get their legislation through the Senate, they often respond that the Senate provides a check on government power. Compare this with the original Westminster system in the UK in which government is formed in the lower house and the upper house is weak.

So far, you have read about the institutional mechanisms by which governments in Australia are made accountable. Next, you will consider the act of voting which is held to be both a right and a duty. At the federal level, citizen members of the House of Representatives represent their separate electorates and senators represent their states.

6.Democracy, Elections and Compulsory Voting

A number of the observations above raise the question of whether a healthy democracy does indeed require active participation in elections by a well-informed citizenry. While it may be tempting to answer immediately, 'Yes' to this question, some would argue that a community that is largely uninterested and uninvolved in the political process, and happy to allow the government to 'get on the job of governing', is also a healthy sign. In this latter case, a lack of participation suggests a contented community in which citizens feels little need to join political parties, or lobby government ministers, because they are generally satisfied with current political practices and culture. There is evidence of both these elements of citizenship in Australia's political history. For instance, Australia was a world pioneer in the granting of full adult suffrage and the secret ballot. These steps indicate a demand for meaningful political participation by its citizens. Yet, in 1924, only a few decades after these achievements, Australia became one of the few countries to introduce compulsory voting for national elections. One of the reasons offered at the time was to reverse a serious decline in the turn-out, that is, the proportion of eligible voters casting a ballot at elections. As a result of compulsion, Australia has a turn-out in excess of 95% in most Federal elections. In the 1996 US Presidential election, only 49% of eligible American voters exercised their most basic political right.

The next reading canvasses some important issues concerning compulsory voting in a democracy. The major arguments of those, like Geoffrey Blainey, who are opposed to compulsion, focus on voting as a right which people should not be compelled to exercise. Others support compulsory voting on the grounds that it is a civic responsibility like jury service or payment of taxes. Note, however, that strictly speaking, Australians are not actually compelled to vote, but to attend a polling booth and have their name crossed off a roll. For a detailed review and critique of arguments for and against compulsory voting see Hughes (1968).

STUDY EXERCISE 6.4

Read:G. Blainey, 1991 [1990]. The infantile custom of compulsory voting. In G. Blainey Blainey: Eye on Australia. Melbourne: Schwartz & Wilkinson. pp. 203—13.

1.What was the main reason for making voting compulsory? Answer

2.Why, according to Blainey, does compulsory voting remain in force? Answer

3.Why does Blainey think that compulsory voting mocks the people's responsibility? Answer

One of the first issues Blainey raises is that politicians fail in their duty to the people by not completing the full three year term for which they were elected. Although three years is the maximum term for the lower House in the federal parliament, there is no set minimum. Senate terms, are, however, fixed at six years and can only be shortened if there is a double dissolution. The Prime Minister can at any time seek approval for an election from the Governor General. Generally, governments seek an early election because they expect that they will have a better chance of winning another term in office at that time rather than at the end of their term. Frustration at this opportunism explains Blainey's tone.

There has been some debate in Australia and elsewhere about what is an appropriate length for a parliamentary term and whether governments should be allowed to go to an election before their three or four year terms are up. One argument is that short terms are more democratic because representatives must frequently account for their actions to the electorate. On the other hand, this puts parliamentarians into permanent election mode and governments may be reluctant to take unpopular but necessary decisions on long term issues.

Blainey also reminds us that compulsory voting for Commonwealth elections was introduced as a private member's Bill. These are Bills not initiated by the government and that fact explains their usual lack of success. If the number of independent and minor party members of parliament increases, however, one may expect there to be an increase in private member's Bills.

The major arguments against compulsory voting have drawn on the idea that to force a citizen to vote for someone with whom he does not agree is an infringement upon one's individual liberty. As Blainey observes, compulsory voting saves political parties the task of persuading citizens to vote. In countries where voting is not compulsory, political parties are confronted with the dual task of first getting voters to the polling booth and second, of persuading them to vote for a particular party. Supporters of compulsory voting suggest that minor parties and independents might be disadvantaged by having to find the resources 'to get out the vote'. Opponents of compulsory voting argue that parties who have to persuade their supporters to come out to vote might be more diligent and less inclined to take their adherents for granted. You might also note that compulsory voting makes the task of pollsters and political analysts a little easier because they know how big the pool of voters is.

Think about whether or not you agree with Blainey's point that the reluctant voter may be more likely to support a big party rather than a small one. This is a speculation on Blainey's part and he produces no evidence to support his view. One may just as convincingly argue that people who are compelled to vote may feel resentful and then protest by voting for a minor party. Blainey also states that whether compulsion favours one party over another is not easily answered although various analysts have often assumed that Labor is advantaged.

When compulsory voting was introduced, its supporters thought that it would increase the levels of political knowledge because citizens would wish to make an informed vote. Blainey expresses the view, however, that people vote in order to avoid paying a fine. Yet, a survey conducted in 1987 found, however, that only 7 per cent of citizens voted because of the threat of a fine, and that the main feeling associated with voting was satisfaction. Almost half those supporting the policy gave this as their primary feeling (McAllister 1992: 31). Although Blainey feels strongly about the issue of compulsory voting, it has not been an issue which has stirred many Australians, the majority of whom support compulsory voting.

Advocates of compulsory voting also argue that representative democracies are elected on the basis of majorities and that if all citizens do not vote, then governments might be elected by as little as 25 per cent of the population. Such governments may be regarded as unrepresentative of the population as a whole and consequently, they may not be perceived as legitimate. Advocates of compulsion also argue that voting is a civic duty, like jury service, and is not especially onerous. Blainey suggests, however, that Australians are compelled to vote more frequently than the people of any other nation, in that they have to vote regularly for federal and state elections.

Overall, supporters of compulsory voting generally see it as a practical solution to the problem of persuading people to exercise a vital civic responsibility in a liberal democracy. An editorial in the Australian newspaper takes up these questions to claim that compulsory voting is part of the democratic tradition in Australia. It has the further advantage that 'politicians must appeal to the entire community, not just those who choose to vote' (Editorial 1996: 22).

Read:Editorial 1996. Compulsory vote serves democracy. Weekend Australian 2—3, March: 22.

Despite the objectives of compulsory voting, over the last decade there has been increasing public criticism of governments, politicians and parties for their lack of responsiveness to citizens. Such criticism seemed to be a major motivation underlying the election of 11 One Nation Party MPs in Queensland, and the election of independent MPs in that State and elsewhere. Such events have provoked political leaders to express their intentions to be more responsive to those who have elected them. These tendencies suggest that many parliamentarians and citizens continue to recognise parliament's importance as a representative institution, but would like it to be more accountable. An associated criticism is that parliaments are generally unaccountable because they are unrepresentative of the wide range of citizens. There is concern, for example, that parliament does not properly represent the community because the majority of MPs are white, middle class, middle aged men. Various suggestions have been put forward about how to remedy the situation and it remains a controversial issue.

For these and other reasons, radical critics of liberal democracy argue that voting in parliamentary elections achieves little and that Australians must adopt other methods of democratic participation. In the following reading, Brian Martin makes a case against elections. He also canvasses and criticises a range of other methods of participation, and offers an alternative which he calls demarchy.

Read:B. Martin, 1990. Democracy without elections. Social Alternatives 8(4): 13—18.

By advocating more participation Martin's ideas lie more strongly in a civic republican tradition, akin to that which existed in ancient Athens, than a liberal democratic one. Unlike most liberal democrats, Martin sees his version of democracy (demarchy) as an end in itself and not a means for achieving other goals. Like some of the electorally oriented social movements he criticises, Martin understands democracy not just as an instrument but as a way of life. For those who are disenchanted with liberal democracy, demarchy may offer some comfort. As Martin acknowledges, however, demarchy does not necessarily exclude citizen participation in elections to achieve worthwhile reforms. Whether his proposals can attract sufficient support to be implemented remains to be seen.

Conclusion

This Study Week has canvassed the operation and effectiveness of liberal democratic political institutions in Australia. We have considered the differences between the ideal Westminster model and Australian practices. A further critical task required you to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the major institutions of representation and liberal democracy. As we have seen above a number of these issues are set within arguments over the respective merits of retaining a constitutional monarchy and proposals to establish an Australian republic. In addition, we have canvassed a number of arguments for and against the political obligation to compulsory voting and a democratic alternative the electoral politics.

Whatever the problems confronting Australian institutions they exemplify at least one major virtue. Although there is often robust political conflict between government and opposition parties in Australia, this conflict is non-violent. Liberal democracy in Australia and elsewhere rests on a number of shared assumptions about the need to tolerate dissent (within certain limits) and to resolve differences peacefully. It is also important to note that arguments over democracy in Australia are often as much about democratic possibilities and potential as about conforming to historical tradition and precedent. We will explore a few more of the possibilities for extending democracy in later weeks on associational democracy, corporate citizenship and global citizenship.

Review for Week 6

Before proceeding, you ought to review your understanding of this week's topic by:

(a) checking your responses to the Study Exercises against those supplied in the Study Guide, and

(b) reading again the documents for this week and completing the related Study Questions in the Workbook, for which there are no answers provided.

References

Australian Republican Movement. 1997. The republic. Australian 28 May: 13.

Australians for Constitutional Monarchy. 1997. The monarchy. Australian 28 May: 13.

Barwick, G. 1995. Democracy too precious for political tinkering. Australian 3 April: 11.

Blainey, G. 1991 [1990]. The infantile custom of compulsory voting. In G. Blainey Blainey: Eye on Australia. Melbourne: Schwartz & Wilkinson. pp. 203—13.

Editorial 1996. Compulsory vote serves democracy. Weekend Australian 2—3 March: 22.

Horne, D. 1996. Ballot papers must never box us in. Australian 15 April: 11.

Joint House Department 1989. Australia's Parliament House. Canberra: AGPS.

Lovell, D.W. et al. eds. 1995. The Australian Political System. Melbourne: Longman.

Martin, B. 1990. Democracy without elections. Social Alternatives 8(4): 13—18.

McAllister, I. 1992. Political Behaviour: Citizens, Parties and Elites in Australia. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Reid, G.S. 1968. Australia's Commonwealth parliament and the 'Westminster model'. In C.A. Hughes ed. Readings in Australian Government. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, pp. 109—12.

Summers, J. 1997. Parliament and responsible government. In D. Woodward, A. Parkin and J. Summers, Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia. Melbourne: Longman, pp. 22—41.

Turnbull, M. 1994. How Britannia ruled our constitution. Australian 29 July: 13.

Internet and On-Line Resources

Below is a list of web-sites relevant to this week's course material. These sites should be of use in completing the study and research exercises for this week.

Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)
Provides information about the AEC's services and the electoral process

Australian Governments' Entry Point:

Commonwealth Parliamentary Library:

Constitutional Centenary Foundation

Prime Minister of Australia:

The Australian Constitution for Beginners:

Liberal Democracy: Accountability, Political Rights and Duties