My October article concluded with the rhetorical question: “Whither goest democracy in Tasmania?” The question arose from a number of ‘findings’ in the article which could be summarised as follows:

• Parliamentary approval of the pulp mill was gained by a process described by one MLC as “shonky dealings” and “corruption of democratic process”. That is indisputable.

• That parliament could act in this way on such a major issue clearly demonstrates a lack of respect for our democratic institutions and traditions.

• Without urgent reform, there is nothing to stop further incidences of ‘corrupt’ practice (more mills, roads through the Tarkine, etc); and poor governance.

• Our presumed democratic freedoms, protections etc, have progressively been whittled away over time to the point we are left with the trappings of parliamentary democracy, but not the reality.

So: what has bought us to this alarming situation; and more importantly, what action can concerned citizens reasonably take aimed at reclaiming our democratic rights? This article seeks to address these important questions.

Democracy here is taken to mean government by the people; a form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them (or their elected representatives) under a free electoral system. A democratic system then is one characterised by the principle of political and social equality for all.

Our Country has in the past been prepared to go to war to protect our democratic way of life, illustrating the extraordinary value placed on the preservation of democracy. Tens of thousands of our fellow citizens have fought and sacrificed so much for this cause. Therefore, when our political representatives flagrantly breach fundamental principles of our parliamentary democracy, they betray a sacred trust implicitly placed in them by all those in the past who sacrificed themselves for what they believed was a noble cause – the defence of democracy. On this basis alone, any abuse of our democratic system of government by elected representatives of the people is contemptible and should be roundly condemned.

As a leading Tasmanian academic and keen observer of the political landscape recently observed: nepotism, cronyism, corporatism and patronage are all contemporary features of the Tasmanian political scene. What an indictment of all those involved! And that includes all citizens who have watched with concern and often despair as our politicians parade the political scene with apparent little consideration for serving the greater public good: the interests of cronies, special interest groups and their own political career always seem to take precedence over those of the people. Arguably, we are getting what we deserve because after all, we elect these people to represent our interests – and continue to do so even when they consistently betray the trust we place in them.

Are we then all masochists? Or are there forces at play that mean we have limited choice as to who we are able to elect? And if that is the case, what can we do about it?

Having been an active member of a political party since University days, and having recently joined that select band called septuagenarians, I have had the opportunity to observe the workings of politics and our system of government over a lengthy period. Now no longer a Party member,(for obvious reasons) and pondering the failings of our parliamentary system, I have come to the realisation that political parties themselves are at the heart of the problem!

In his celebrated farewell speech to the nation more than 200 years ago, America’s first President, George Washington, flagged the danger he foresaw in the role emerging political parties would play in the democratic process when he warned: “the spirit of Party could be the worst enemy of democracy”. His thesis was that, in time, democracy would be enfeebled if elected representatives of the people believed that their first loyalty was to the party and not the people.

Is there any real evidence to indicate that democracy in Tasmania is indeed being ‘enfeebled’ by a “Party before people” approach? A notable example is the recent case of Terry Martin, MLC, who effectively denounced his own Party (Labor) for what he termed “corruption of fundamental democratic process” following the truncated pulp mill approval process – and subsequently was shunned by, and obliged to leave the Party. Criticism of Party machinations could not be tolerated but anti-democratic behaviour could!

In another instance, we had the spectacle of a first-time political candidate (Ben Quin) voicing the concerns of many people in his electorate on the pulp mill and being warned by Liberal Party bosses to cease because the Party had already made its support for the mill clear and wasn’t about to change its stance just because of voter discontent. When he continued to press for a Party re-think, disendorsement quickly followed. A clear example of Party interests trumping those of the people.

Another (and quite amazing) example concerns a high profile Federal politician who surprised a group of local business people when he privately labelled the pulp-mill an abomination – and then returned to Canberra and publicly supported it. When challenged later, he admitted being directed to do so by ‘head office’. Again – Party before principle!

Events such as these cause widespread frustration in the electorate and disenchantment with the political process to the extent that the Party system is now being viewed by many as “the enemy within”, subverting rather than promoting a democratic system of government.

Perhaps the major problem with political parties is that they select most candidates for political office thereby restricting the options available to electors. If, as often seems the case, selection of candidates is influenced by considerations other than merit, then the talent pool from which we ultimately must choose our elected representatives (when voting along Party lines), may be quite limited.
When cronyism, nepotism and patronage are in play (and who can doubt they are in Tasmania!) its more than possible that many of the candidates on Party tickets will lack real merit: party hacks, cronies or “political names” who seem to think it is their birthright to be granted passage into parliament via the party machine. As one writer recently observed, these political names appear to view a parliamentary system of “checks and balances” as “pay cheques and bank balances”!

There is no doubt that political parties provide a number of benefits to members and candidates for political office: administrative, financial, research etc. However, it seems they have now evolved to the stage where they have usurped the power of the people. If, as described earlier, a democratic system is one characterised by the principle of political and social equality for all, then clearly we no longer have a democratic system of government. Our elected representatives always feel obliged to give first allegiance to their party where there is conflict between the interests of the people and the Party. George Washington was prophetic indeed!

Reform then is clearly needed if the democratic rights of the people are to be restored – and as observed in the October article, we can’t expect any initiatives in that regard to issue from the major political parties. They seem content to alternate periods in government thereby sharing the spoils of power. This means of course marginalising any competition (such as the Greens) by all means possible, including special interest attack groups! We have in this situation the closest thing to a political conspiracy as you are ever likely to see under our electoral system.

How then can our political system ever be reformed given the major political parties will inevitably act to preserve the status quo. Again, as with providing opposition to fast-tracking the pulp mill approvals process, that task will devolve to the people. Already, groups of concerned citizens are meeting to brainstorm ideas and identify opportunities for reform: things that are do-able, affordable and likely to make a difference. Those involved include Councillors, business-persons, academics, farmers, doctors, journalists, young professionals etc. This suggests that increasing numbers of people are being energised by the realisation that change to the political landscape is necessary; and that impetus for change will have to come from the people.

It is undoubtedly public pressure that has led a reluctant Premier to proceed with legislation for a watchdog “Integrity Commission”. Other States have long since instituted Anti-Corruption and Crime Commissions with sweeping powers to investigate “corruption” in all its forms. Of particular relevance is the wider definition of corruption spelled out by the retiring head of the ACCC in WA (a former Chief Justice): it is not restricted to cases where someone in authority has acted improperly or possibly illegally in return for financial favours but also includes: failing to observe proper practice; taking short-cuts; failure to follow due process; deliberate actions by public servants, officials or politicians which end up conferring a benefit on a participant (often a Corporation); and ignoring conflicts of interests. On that basis, the Commission would have been all over the pulp-mill assessment and approval process had it been conducted in WA!

Assuming the proposed Tasmanian Integrity Commission is given real powers and adequate resourcing, “shonky dealings” involving government ministers and officials will in future come under proper scrutiny. Its establishment should therefore bring some comfort to an electorate deeply troubled by what can only be described as flagrant breaches of democratic principles and processes. Based on the experience of ‘watchdog’ commissions in other States, we can expect an Integrity Commission to inhibit, but not eliminate corrupt practice. It is not therefore a solution to all our problems. It would not normally, for example, investigate the sort of issues associated with the operation of political parties identified herein where, apparently hostage to “special interest groups”, they promote the interests of a powerful few at the expense of the many.

If it is accepted that political parties themselves are a major factor in the breakdown of democracy in this state, what viable other electoral options can be offered in order for electors to have real choice? An obvious option is to organise for the election of Independent candidates dedicated solely to serving the people in their electorates, as opposed to candidates who must serve Party interests first; and as seen with the pulp mill, Party interests may be inimical to those of the people in many electorates. Given there are case-histories in the past of talented Independent candidates serving their constituents with great distinction, perhaps it is time to promote change away from political parties to groups of Independents so as to reform parliament in a way that supreme power is again vested in the people. To do so would be a formidable, but not insurmountable task. The greatest obstacle would be to change the collective voter mindset that a vote for Independents is a wasted vote because, individually, they rarely have the power to deliver on promises made to the electorate. Would an “Independents Party” (differently constituted), or a Coalition of Independents for example, be feasible? These are the sorts of initiatives being examined.

Ideas are important but concerted action is what is required. As Winston Churchill once famously remarked: democracy isn’t perfect, but it’s better than any of the alternatives. Arguably, the form of parliamentary democracy now practiced in this State is so imperfect as to warrant urgent change. It’s now up to the people to make it happen.