Government and democracy and stuff...

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few. - George Bernard Shaw

Democracy: three crucial elements

Participation Representation

Accountability

Participation
Democracy relies on the participation of its citizens Otherwise, how can it govern in their interests? Who are its citizens, and who is allowed to vote (suffrage)? Landowners? By 1832, still only 1 in 7 British men could vote Women? In Victoria, not until 1908. In the UK, not until 1928! Indigenous people? In Australia, not until 1949 (in Suffrage is very important, and the question of who should be excluded from voting cannot be taken In Australia we legally compel citizens to vote - however, this is not the case in most democracies. Democratic participation occurs in forms other than just voting however - particularly through
engagement with civil society organisations and networks (political parties, trade unions, community groups, activist networks, etc.) lightly, as it is the primary form of participation in modern democracies.

Prisoners? Yes in Australia, not in many other countries Young people? Usually not for those under 18

federal elections). In South Africa, not until 1983 (kind of).

 All modern democracies are (more or less) representative democracies. Unlike ancient Greece, we have way too many people for direct democracy to be applied
Some countries (like Switzerland) have a watered-down form of direct democracy through The people elect representatives, who derive a mandate from this election that gives them the
promises, or Kevin Rudds failure to do anything he promised at the election.
successfully (some anarchists may argue otherwise, but when was the last time you cared what anarchists think?) referendums, however, the basis of their political system is still representative government.

Representation

responsibility to enact policies and legislation in line with what they promised their electorate at the time of election.

This, of course, can be hugely problematic - think John Howards core promises and non-core

By its very nature, such a system privileges the majority. Thus, most functional All politicians will claim at some point to be governing for all citizens.
This is impossible. People tend to get angry when they feel that their elected leaders do not really represent their views. Particularly if their leader is African-American.

democracies feature mechanisms to still give minorities a voice, and to hopefully avoid the tyranny of the majority.

 Unchecked power leads to corruption and tyranny. Our elected leaders must be answerable to others Not all democracies have the same level of checks and balances - some have lots, like the US, whilst
others have fewer, like Australia. An effective democracy, however, must have some.
checks and balances, separation of powers.

Accountability

In Australia, the government is answerable to the Parliament (and the Governor-General? - 1975).
The House of Representatives is checked by the Senate. The Parliament is answerable to the people every three years (six for senators). Decisions of Parliament can be struck down by the High Court. These judges are selected by Parliament, and cannot create laws, only interpret them. The Constitution can only be changed by referendum, with a double majority. four years. The Cabinet is selected by the President, and approved by Congress. The House of Representatives is checked by the Senate. Congress is answerable to the people every two years (four for senators). Decisions of Congress must be approved by the President, and can be struck down by the Supreme Court. These judges are selected by the President, approved by Congress, and cannot create laws, only interpret them. The Constitution can only be changed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, and ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures.

In the US, the President is answerable both to Congress (impeachment) and to the people every

There is always a trade-off between accountability and efficiency - you cant have both.

 Liberal democracy A democracy wherein individual rights and freedoms (speech, assembly, religion, etc.) are protected

Some terminology...

by law.

e.g. Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the US, Canada, India, France, Germany, Israel, Mexico,
Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, etc.

Illiberal democracy? A contested concept - is an illiberal democracy a democracy at all? Essentially a devolved democracy, in which the institutions of democracy (parliament, separation of
powers, elections, etc.) are present, but where one party or group have restricted freedoms in order to consolidate their own power.

Social democracy Has a confused history - originally a synonym for Marxist socialism, as in the Russian Social Nowadays generally refers to countries like Sweden, in which rights of social justice (right to a home,
fair wage, healthcare, education, etc.) are seen as being as worthy of legal protection as traditional liberal rights.

More kindly referred to as guided or managed democracy.

Democratic Labour Party

e.g. Singapore, Zimbabwe, Russian Federation

 Authoritarianism A government characterised by rule by a single person or party, brutal control, and few civil liberties or freedoms. e.g. Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc. Totalitarianism A 20th century phenomenon - an extreme, highly ideologically-driven form of authoritarianism in which a
government attempts to control and shape almost every aspect of an individuals life.

Some more terminology...

Communism Probably the most confused and abused term in modern political discourse. Has two primary meanings:
1. An idealised state of existence envisioned by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto, in which there is no state, no government, no social class, and where the means of production are controlled wholly by the workers. 2. A system of government first implemented by the Bolshevik party in Russia in 1917, known also as Marxist-Leninism. A form of totalitarianism, it involves rule by a single Communist party, virtually no civil liberties, brutal secret police, and a highlycentralised, planned economy with few market mechanisms.

e.g. Nazi Germany, the USSR

Only one state (North Korea) could plausibly be argued to still be a true Communist state in the second sense - and even then, its
become more of a bizarre monarchy than anything else. All other states still controlled by a Communist party (China and Vietnam are the main ones) have instituted economic reforms that have seen them abandon a centralised command economy in favour of a more capitalist system. Thus, they are more usefully regarded as simply authoritarian states, rather than actually Communist. The ideology now exists primarily as a means to justify the continued rule of a single party. political, and economic upheaval that would need to occur - if this is your best argument, think of something else.

e.g. USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, East Germany, Cambodia, Czechoslovakia, etc.

Please note when debating: a slippery slope for a democratic nation towards communism is extremely unlikely, considering the social,

Three branches of government

Executive Enforces the law Head of state Head of government + cabinet Bureaucracy Legislature Creates laws Parliament / Congress

Judiciary Interprets, applies, and reviews the law Courts

The Australian government: a product of two primary influences

The United Kingdom
Executive Head of state: Queen Elizabeth II Head of government: Prime Minister (the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons) Cabinet: Selected from Parliament, on the advice of the Prime Minister

The United States

Executive Head of state and head of government: President (directly elected kind of) Cabinet: Selected by the President - nominees are approved by, but not selected from Congress

Legislature Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: House of Commons and House of Lords

Legislature Congress: House of Representatives and Senate

Judiciary Court of Appeal High Court of Justice Appellate Committee of the House of Lords

Judiciary District Courts Courts of Appeals Supreme Court

The Australian government: a product of two primary influences

The United Kingdom
Executive Head of state: Queen Elizabeth II Head Head of government: Prime Minister (the leader of the majority party in Head of government: the House of Commons) Prime Minister (the Cabinet: Selected from Parliament, on the advice of the Prime Minister

Australia!

The United States

kind of)

Executive Executive of state: Governor-General (representative of the Queen state and head of government: President (directly elected in Australia) Head of leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives)Cabinet: Cabinet: Selected Selected from Parliament, on the advice of the Prime Minister by the President - nominees are approved by, but
not selected from Congress

Legislature Legislature Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Commonwealth Parliament of Australia: House of Commons and House of Lords House of Representatives and Senate

Legislature Congress: House of Representatives and Senate

Judiciary Court of Appeal High Court of Justice Appellate Committee of the House of Lords

Judiciary Federal Magistrates Court Federal Courts High Court

Judiciary District Courts Courts of Appeals Supreme Court

 A legislature creates laws. In Australia, our legislature is the Parliament. Our Parliament is bicameral, meaning it has two houses - a lower house (the House of Representatives) and an upper house (the Senate). The houses powers are almost equal. Legislation can be introduced in either house, except money bills, which must be introduced in

Legislature

House of Representatives contains 150 members, each elected from a separate electorate. The Senate contains 76 members - twelve
The bicameral nature of Parliament means that the two houses act as checks upon each other - the Senate is designed primarily as a The House of Representatives is elected using preferential voting (a.k.a. instant-runoff voting). Voters number candidates in order of
preference. If the candidate with the highest number of votes does not have an absolute majority, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and their ballots are redistributed at full value until a majority is reached. states house and a house of review - blocking legislation that it deems unsuitable. from each state, and two each from the Northern Territory and ACT. Representatives have three year terms, Senators six years, although only half the Senate is elected each election (except in the case of a double-dissolution).

the House of Representatives.

This is in contrast to most countries, which use either first-past-the-post voting (candidate with a simple majority wins) or runoff
voting (if there is no absolute majority, all but the two highest ranked are eliminated, and another vote is held).

The Senate is elected through preferential proportional representation. Voters number candidates in order of preference. Each candidate

needs a certain proportion of the total vote from their state in order to win (14.3%). If a voters first preference has already received enough votes to win, that vote is then transferred at full value to that voters second preference, and so on. This form of voting means that governments very rarely have a majority in the Senate, and that the balance of power is often held by minor parties (Greens, Family First, Democrats, etc.) efficiency which comes from not having an upper house to block legislation. The problem in parliamentary systems, however, is that it gives much more power to the government, who usually have a majority in the parliament. This results in a lack of separation of power between the executive and legislature. violates the principle of one man, one vote. For example, each senator from NSW represents approx. 583,300 people. A senator from Tasmania, on the other hand, represents around 41,600 people. Yet each of them have the same power in the Senate.

Lots of countries have unicameral legislatures instead (New Zealand, Israel, Turkey, Iceland, etc.) The main advantage of these systems is the

It is sometimes argued that Australias Senate is undemocratic, because each Senate gets an equal number of senators, which essentially

Executive
In Australia, we have a pure parliamentary system. This means that we do not directly elect our head of government, instead, our government By convention, immediately following an election, the leader of the party or coalition that has a majority in the House of Representatives is
appointed by the Governor-General as Prime Minister. They then appoint a ministry from members of their own party (from both houses). This is the executive government.
is formed from within the Parliament.

The executive exist to enforce the laws created by Parliament. They do this in association with a bureaucracy (the public service), which acts to

This is in contrast to the US, where their Presidential candidates are nominated through primaries, giving voters the ability to choose.

The executive is answerable primarily to the Parliament through Question Time, committee hearings, and
inquiries.

advise ministers, and implement their decisions.

The Australian system of executive government is in contrast to two main other forms of government:
1. Presidential systems (e.g. the US, South Korea, lots of South America, etc.): in these countries, the executive (the President) is directly elected, rather than being appointed from within the legislature. They act separately to the legislature, and are not generally accountable to it, although they may be dismissed by it. They are, however, answerable to the people in a way that out PM is not. 2. Semi-presidential systems (e.g. France, Taiwan, Russian Federation, etc.): in these countries, executive power is divided between a directly elected President, and a Prime Minister appointed from the Parliament. This can lead to strife when the two leaders are from opposing parties.

Judiciary

I find this part very dull. The High Court is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has the power of judicial review over laws passed by both the federal Parliament and the parliaments of the states, and it interprets the Constitution. Composed of seven judges: a Chief Justice and six other guys. Each is appointed by the GovernorGeneral at the advice of the Prime Minister. Each is appointed until the age of 70.

This is in sharp contrast to the US, in which candidates are nominated by the President, and approved by the Senate.

Federalism?
Federal
State
Local

State
Local

State
Local Local

State
Local Local Local Local Local Local

Local

Local

Australia has a federal system of government. New Zealand does not - it has a unitary government. Federalism is a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between political units - thus, in Australia we have a
commonwealth government, and six state governments. This is another aspect of government we copied from the US.

There are also local governments (councils and shires), however, they are not mentioned in the Constitution, and thus are solely
Powers are defined by Section 51: specific powers, concurrent powers, and residual powers. Commonwealths powers were originally fairly narrow: military, currency, immigration, mail/telegraph, marriage, copyright, banking, insurance,
etc. controlled by the states.

However, in recent years we have seen a substantial increase in the commonwealths power - through High Court decisions, voluntary
Many argue today that the states are anachronistic, and that Australia would be better served (more efficient, more accountable, more
consistent) if they were eliminated entirely. referral of powers, and financial incentives (i.e. the GST).

 Republic is a really vague term - for these purposes, its a government without a monarch as the head of state. e.g. the US, France, Germany, India, Italy, Mexico, China, Russian Federation, Indonesia, etc. A constitutional monarchy is a government which has a (usually hereditary) monarch as its head of state, but where said monarchs powers
are limited by a constitution.

A republic?

In Australia, the monarch is represented by a Governor-General, who is selected by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister. Whilst
this role is generally seen as ceremonial, in theory (both constitutionally, and through convention) the G-G has an enormous range of reserve powers, which include the ability to reject laws, sack governments and replace them, call a double dissolution, amongst others. These have only been used once in Australias history - in 1975, Sir John Kerr dismissed the Whitlam government, and called a new election, placing Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister.

e.g. the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, etc.

Many feel that Australia having a foreign monarch as its head of state is anachronistic and perhaps even harmful to our sovereignty, and that
Australia should assert its status as an independent nation by adopting an Australian head of state. be members of the Commonwealth of Nations - just like India.

Note: despite what ignorant people may tell you, even if Australia becomes a republic, we will still

Monarchists on the other hand, generally fall into two camps: conservative monarchists, who feel that the
A referendum was held on this issue in 1999 - it failed to achieve either condition of a double majority. In order to pass a referendum in Australia, you must get both a majority of all voters, and a

monarchy is an important part of Australias heritage, identity, and democracy; and pragmatic monarchists, n who think the present system works fine, and doesnt need changing

In the aftermath of this referendum, the question of a republic has moved substantially off the
political radar, although it is still a favourite of the chattering classes.

majority of states. This is really difficult - Australia has only ever passed eight referendums.

A republic - which model?

It seems to be the general consensus today that the 1999 referendum failed because of the model of republic that was chosen - although one

There is also a very widespread consensus - ignore the tiny, but vocal minority who claim otherwise - that Australia should adopt a minimal

could argue that this was more a result of ignorance and deceitful advertising by the No campaigners than because of anything actually wrong with the model itself. republican model. This is one in which constitutional references to the Governor-General are simply replaced by references to a President, references to the British monarchy are removed entirely, and a method of selection for the President is added. Everything else - including the aforementioned reserve powers - is left intact, and the President remains essentially a ceremonial role.

The question of how to select the President is the major sticking point. There are two basic models: The parliamentary model: This is the model that was proposed in 1999. The President would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of
Parliament. This would ensure that the President had bipartisan support, was apolitical (respecting the ceremonial nature of the position), and was accountable to the Parliament. Bizarrely, the No campaigners were highly successful in convincing people that this was undemocratic and would result in a loss of checks and balances - even though the model was far more democratic than what they were proposing - the status quo! of the Australian voters, rather than MPs. The problem with this model is that it may encourage the politicisation of the role of President - candidates will inevitably run on partisan lines, and the President may feel that as the only popularly-elected member of the executive, he/she has the mandate to remove a government or block legislation. This would fundamentally change the nature of Australian democracy, and in particular, lessen the authority of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The progressive model: The President would be directly elected by the people. As a result, the head of state would be representative

 A bill of rights (a term originating from the 1689 Bill of Rights passed by the English Parliament, but generally used in reference to the first ten Australia, at present, does not include protection for any of these rights (except religion, kind of) in our Constitution. Whilst we still off legal
protection for most of these things (although often to a lesser degree than the US), this protection comes either from legislation passed by Parliament, or common law precedent. amendments to the US Constitution) refers to the constitutional protection of liberal rights and freedoms (free speech, religion, assembly, etc.)

A bill of rights?

There was an attempt by the Hawke government at the 1988 referendum to enshrine some of these rights constitutionally, however, it failed to
Those in favour of an Australian bill of rights argue that: It allows for consistency in lawmaking, and provides an ethical framework that currently does not exist. It protects the rights of individuals from governments, who are otherwise able to alter the law to their whims through Parliament. It provides a universal framework from which citizens can assert claims to rights. It protects minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Common law protection of rights is complex, inconsistent, and incomplete. Those against a bill of rights argue that: It is redundant - we already have the necessary protections in place. It is inflexible and vague - legislation and precedent allow rights and protections to be addressed as the need arises, and in the context It undermines the power and authority of the Parliament, by enabling judges to strike down legislation based on rigid criteria. Makes lawmaking less efficient, and will lead to more frivolous legal challenges. It may not be in societys interest to enshrine absolute rights - for instance, the right to free speech makes it difficult to censor hate
groups. of the day. Rights that were appropriate once may become outdated (c.f. the 2nd Amendment in the US). pass.

Compulsory voting?
In almost every other democracy in the world, voting is a choice. In Australia, it is not. Here, you are legally required to register to vote, and
required to show up at a polling booth for every election (you dont have to actually vote, but you must show up).

The result of this is that Australias voter turnout rate hovers around 95% for every election. This in sharp contrast to most
democracies, where turnout is often below 50%, and can often drop much lower.

In terms of democratic rights, compulsory voting is essentially a trade-off. On the one hand, it takes away a right - the right not to vote - and
compels people to do something may not wish to do. On the other hand, it increases participation, quite dramatically often - which is presumably a good thing. the views of the majority. to fote for them.

Higher voter turnout means a more legitimate mandate for our elected leaders, and more chance that those elected actually represent

Less money needs to be spent on advertising, as candidates dont need to convince people to come out and vote - just that they need
Compulsory voting does, however, substantially increase donkey votes. It also encourages the appearance of safe seats, in which one party is virtually guaranteed that they will be elected, regardless of the
circumstances of the election. Safe seats tend to miss out on funding (porkbarreling), as politicians push their focus towards the marginal seats that actually decide an election.

Reply speeches

Reply speeches are used at ADAM and Australs. Reply speeches are made by either the 1st or 2nd speakers.

Reply speeches occur after the 3rd Negative speech - the negative reply speaker goes first, and then the affirmative. Reply speeches last from 3-4 minutes.
Reply speeches are marked with scores exactly half those of regular speeches - so the average is 37.5.

Reply speeches must not contain new material. Reply speeches must not contain rebuttal.

A reply speech is a broad, thematic summary of the debate - a biased adjudication. A reply speaker should, in fairly neutral language, analyse the most important issues of the debate, and explain why their team won those issues. A reply speaker will generally use a calm, non-argumentative manner style.