Whispering Hope

I thought that I would end what has been a truly tumultuous year with the words from an old song. The lyrics have meaning and the music is very easy listening.

Lyrics for “Whispering Hope”.

Soft as the voice of an angel,
Breathing a lesson unheard,
Hope with a gentle persuasion
Whispers her comforting word:
Wait till the darkness is over,
Wait till the tempest is done,
Hope for the sunshine tomorrow,
After the shower is gone.

Refrain:
Whispering hope, oh, how welcome thy voice,
Making my heart in its sorrow rejoice.

If, in the dusk of the twilight,
Dim be the region afar,
Will not the deepening darkness
Brighten the glimmering star?
Then when the night is upon us,
Why should the heart sink away?
When the dark midnight is over,
Watch for the breaking of day.

Hope, as an anchor so steadfast,
Rends the dark veil for the soul,
Whither the Master has entered,
Robbing the grave of its goal;
Come then, oh, come, glad fruition,
Come to my sad weary heart;
Come, O Thou blest hope of glory,
Never, oh, never depart.

   

Whispering Hope

 Written by: Septimus Winner, 1868

It is still there.

I suppose it will still be there until I too die – one day! My grief that is. I know I have written about this before but we will all, all, at some stage of our life experience the searing knife cut of the parting, of the death of someone close, be it child, partner, sibling or parent. It is just part of life. If there is a beginning there needs also to be an ending. 

But this physical ending of someone close – as anyone who has experienced it will testify, lasts and lasts, and lasts. Of a certainty no one will experience my grief, just as I cannot experience theirs. It’s so personal. 

My way of coping with grief varies from day to day, even hour to hour. Sometimes I go for a longish bicycle ride; sometimes I read, either a book or poetry; other times I write; sometimes I listen to music – I like both classical and country and western. I do, however, with one or two exceptions, find it difficult to talk to others about my grief. They might not understand my way of expressing my grief, and I don’t want to belabor or otherwise impose on their emotions with my, possibly uninvited, feelings.  

I find that poetry, music, of any kind and books, fiction and some non-fiction, all contain sentiments of love and parting, either through death or in other ways. Always love, a meeting and a parting. This is not so strange as love is the most powerful emotion there is, and I don’t just mean the eruption of hormones that all experience at some stage of their life. I mean that unquestioning love, that deep knowledge, that trust, that comfortable companionship that develops with time together.

Of course the passage of this love, this knowledge, this trust, to arrive at the place of comfortable companionship is never smooth! That is not the way it works. We will all stumble on our life’s journey and we will all have misunderstandings. But that just makes the arrival point more worthwhile.

I can testify, with some feeling, that life with my wife, Magucha, was often tempestuous. But it was never dull, never boring. Her quick fire Portuguese temperament and my (relatively) slower and less emotional temperament meant that we both had to work hard at our relationship. I know she found me very frustrating at times and would spare no criticisism. She could do that but no one else was allowed to! She would fire up, almost vibrate with anger in my defense if anyone dared criticise me in her presence! I found that very touching and, in a strange way, deeply moving.

But it was all worth it.  I for one had thirty-six wonderful years with a dear friend; with a loyal companion on our journey through life; with a staunch ally; and with someone who I know loved me, deeply. Just as I loved her, just as she was, deeply loved her. 

I of course, cannot now speak for her, but I believe there was nothing, short of some criminal intent, that we would not have done for each other. I know that I would have defended her to my last breath.

This is why I, for one, have found her death so hard to bear; the apparent severing of the physical bonds, so difficult to come to terms with. I will never believe that her soul – she most definitely had a soul – died with her physical body. It is there somewhere. And I know, just know, that sometime, somewhere, we will reach out and hold hands again. 

Saudades!

Is “Civil"-"isation” in jeopardy?

At this time of year when we wish for “Peace on Earth and goodwill to all”, I ask the question, “Is civilization as we know it in jeopardy?”

Today, December 23, 2018, trust is “missing in action”. Trust has been absent without leave – AWOL - for quite a while and trust is desperately needed. Right now. And trust is such a subjective, fragile thing. It cannot be bought or sold. It has to be earned.

Trust in governments; government trust in the electorate; trust in parliaments; trust in politicians; trust in financial organisations; trust in big business; trust in religious institutions; trust in all these, so vital for the smooth running of societies is no longer there. In consequence no one is considered trustworthy.

Trust evaporates when secrecy prevails, with closed meetings, and when cameras are banned from recording; trust evaporates when money takes precedent over humanity; trust evaporates when greed takes precedent over compassion; trust evaporates when veniality is condoned or simply ignored; trust evaporates when those in positions of power tell lies; trust evaporates when meaningless words -“spin”- take the place of policy action; trust evaporates when there is an attempt to indoctrinate with lifeless words.

People – the populous – citizens (the “civitas”) are not stupid. For any leader to consider them as such is a massive mistake. For any leader, anywhere to ignore the will of the people is to do so at their peril. The old saying, “even the worm turns” is very true.

The answer, in my view, is very simple – just treat people, others, the way you would like to be treated. It is an ethical thing.  That is what a “civil” society is based on. That is what “civilisation” is based on. Being “civil” to each other. No matter what colour or creed the “other” may be. All are Human Beings.  That is why it's called the "Golden Rule". 

Is that so difficult?

Oh! And Merry Christmas.

On being Human

Anyone who reads this is, by all accounts, a human being. But then what are human beings? And I don’t just mean the physical attributes of the species Homo Sapiens, I ask what else is there, or should there be, to determine that a human being is truly “human”?

Of course there are the ultimate hypothetical questions – “Why are we here? Why us?” These I cannot answer. Obviously. So what I’ll do is remove some of what I would consider to be the negatives (not in any particular order of importance) from the “equation” that determines a true(?) human.

We are not here just to make money.

We are not here to kill each other.

We are not here to exploit or take unfair advantage of others.

We are not here to enslave others.

We are not here to force either men or women to adopt certain, exclusive, roles.

We are not here to be forced or coerced into believing any one particular belief, or political, system is the only correct one.

We are not here to pillage and destroy the only home we know – Planet Earth.

This narrows things down somewhat. While this may seem like a watered down version of the biblical Ten Commandments - it is not supposed to be. 

These “negatives” hone in on a favourite subject of mine – Ethics.

To avoid falling into the all to human trap, or mind set, of believing that ignoring any of the “negatives” will have few or no consequences, I ask just three questions:-

1.     Would you like it if you were caught up, as a victim, by any of the negatives?

2.     Why not treat everyone, yes everyone, as you would like to be treated?

3.     Furthermore, if everyone, yes EVERYONE, did what you are doing, or proposing to do, would the World be a better place?

If the answer to any of these questions is “No” (as I strongly suspect), then don’t do it.

Simple really!

In my understanding, to be “human”, in the truest sense of the word, is to be ethical. I do not believe there are any viable alternatives. 

Things that happen.

As always when I am writing I try to formulate what is in my mind. This, as anyone who has tried, is not always easy. A great deal depends on the state of my mind. Obviously.

The state of my mind is the big question. I think I am ok with that, but questions, possibly unanswerable questions keep cropping up. I know that I am still grieving, but I try not to mourn. Grieving is for me a very personal, private affair and giving “vent” to this in public, by mourning, is something I just could not and will not do.

I’ll talk about my late wife, Magucha, – yes. Whether that might be classified as mourning I’m not sure. She is still very “real” to me even though it is nearly three years since she died.

The thoughts that create questions in my mind are those, deep questions, relating to the meaning of Life (with a capital L) and what, actually, Life is. I mean is Life the result of the chance combination of molecules or bacteria? Are molecules alive? Are bacteria alive? And how can atoms (which are not considered to be alive) when in various combinations form a living organism? Can molecules, in whatever combination,  create Life, think or have emotions? 

It is inconceivable to me that all the love, emotional strength, energy, intelligence and humour, that made Magucha who she was,  her Life, have just vanished, disappeared – into what?

I have searched long and hard to try and find answers. There are none. There is still debate as to whether the Mind and the Brain are one and the same but no one, as far as I can find, has even come close to determining what Life is and how it comes about. 

So I am left with my quandary. I do however subscribe to the view that Life is a continuum. That there are germinations (births) and deaths and that this commenced when the Universe was formed and will cease – well – when it ceases.

Then there is the purpose of our, Human, lives. Things happen and it is up to each of us to learn from Life’s events and to become better people. To me, Human Life has a purpose; a higher purpose and it is up to us, individually, to find our purpose. 

And I do try.

As always I seek solace in poetry and this extract from a longer poem is as good an explanation as any.

Finis Exoptatus (a rough translation - “Desired End”)

Question not, but live and labour

   Till yon goal be won,

Helping every feeble neighbour,

   Seeking help from none;

Life is mostly froth and bubble,

   Two things stand like stone,

KINDNESS in another’s trouble,

   COURAGE in your own.

                                    Adam Lindsay Gordon

Born: October 19, 1833, Faial Island, Portugal

Died: June 24, 1870, Brighton, Victoria
Buried: Brighton Cemetery, Melbourne, Australia.

Memories or dreams?

It is very strange how memory works. I might be going about my daily chores when a scent, a sound, a picture or something I might read, will suddenly recall an event or something about our lives together. Me with Magucha. I know that it is getting on for three years since she died (I just can’t use the euphemism “passed away”. It seems like an avoidance – to hide something). Sometimes she seems closer than at other times – like a dream – drifting in and out. 

All this reminds me of the reasons why I like poetry and why it has been used by troubadours and wandering minstrels down the centuries is that the cadence, the rhythm, matches that of music and the beat of the human heart – about sixty beats a minute. Before written language was invented, Hindus used the rhythm to help them remember verses of the Bhagavad Gita and other epic tales. Similarly the Greeks had wandering minstrels who would entertain people with tales of Olympus and the Gods who lived there. These stories were later collated by Homer and many other writers. 

This poem – and I know it may pull at the heart-strings – but I don’t care, it resonates for me - only because I grieve. This reminds me of Magucha and the love we shared.  It is all about memories. 

When tomorrow starts without me.

When tomorrow starts without me, I will not be here to see,
That the sun will rise and find your eyes; filled with tears for me,
But please know you're always in my heart, and I will forever love you,
And know, each time you think of me, I will be missing you too.

When tomorrow starts without me, I need you to understand,
That an angel came, he called my name and took me by the hand.
He told me it was time to go up to heaven far above,
And that I have to leave behind all those I dearly love.

When tomorrow starts without me, I know that you will cry,
For all my life I’d always thought that I would never die.
I had so much life ahead of me; I had so much to do,
It seems almost impossible that I was leaving you.

When tomorrow starts without me, I think of the good days, and the bad,
I thought of all our fights, next to all the fun we had.
If I could have stayed, just for a little while,
I would say I'd always be here, and then I'd make you smile.

When tomorrow starts without me, I'll realise that this could never be,
As all that would be left of me, is frozen in memories.
Then I thought of all the beautiful things that I would miss tomorrow,
I thought of you and when I did my heart was filled with sorrow.

When tomorrow starts without me I will walk through heaven’s gate,
I will feel at home even without my soul mate.
I know this is what I wanted, deep down within my bones,
And God looked down and smiled at me from his great golden throne.

When tomorrow starts without me I see everything He promised me,

“Today your life on earth is past, and now you can be free.”
“I promise no tomorrow as today will always last,
And since it's all the same you will not be longing for the past.”

So when tomorrow starts without me don’t think we’re far apart,
For every time you think of me I’m right here in your heart.

Attributed to David Romano. 

Without all this ado!

It can be fun reading books – to me anyway! One never knows what really astute, amusing, sad or genuinely interesting gems one will find.

Here is one that caught my attention. Written by Thomas Traherne (1632? – 1674) and recorded in his “Centuries of Meditations.”

"It is storied of that prince (Pyrrhus, King of Epirus), that having conceived a purpose to invade Italy, he sent for Cineas, a philosopher and the King’s friend: to whom he communicated his design, and desired his counsel. Cineas asked him to what purpose he invaded Italy? He said, to conquer it. And what will you do when you have conquered it? Go into France, said the King, and conquer that. And what will you do when you have conquered France? Conquer Germany. And what then? said the philosopher. Conquer Spain. I perceive, said Cinceas, you mean to conquer all the World. What will you do when you have conquered all? Why then, said the King, we will return, and enjoy ourselves at quiet in our own land. So you may now, said the philosopher, without all this ado."

So true! And applies to not only ambitious Kings and leaders of countries, but, I think, to all leaders of businesses as well.

Gyges

Somehow I keep returning to a topic that has interested me for many years. That of the “link” between cause and effect; or, you reap what you sow; or, more colloquially, what goes around comes around.

This is more accurately stated in what is, I believe, a Spanish proverb, “Take what you want from life,” says God. “Take it, and pay.”

It is a common human failing for people, particularly those in high office, to assume that they can control events. But then we all like to imagine that we can, and have, control over our lives. This hubris is always, always, fraught and always, always, results in unforeseen consequences, good, bad or indifferent.

Because the “effects” are not always immediately apparent, this is something we tend to ignore, forget or consider of little importance.

What follows is an old tale, from ancient Greece, that is I think as relevant today as it ever was. 

In ancient Lydia (now part of Western Turkey facing the Aegean Sea across from Greece) about 3 000 years ago there was a king called Candaules. This king was greatly in love with his wife. In fact obsessively so – he thought she was the most beautiful woman in the world. 

Now Candaules had had a favourite bodyguard called Gyges with whom Candaules was in the habit of sharing is inner-most thoughts. Candaules suspected that Gyges, while having to agree with him, didn’t really believe what he said about his wife. So he proposed that Gyges hide himself in their bedroom so that he could see her naked and thereby affirm that the queen was, indeed, the most beautiful woman in the world. There would be moments when Gyges could slip away undetected.

Gyges was horrified at this proposal and feared for the consequences if the queen saw him. Candaules persisted with his plan and so it eventuated. The queen, however, did see Gyges as he slipped away but made no comment. She knew, immediately, that this was the work of her husband and determined to make him pay for the outrage and her humiliation of being seen naked by another man. 

The next day she called the unsuspecting Gyges and told him what she suspected and that someone had to pay for what he did. Her proposal was that either he, Gyges, would be killed there and then, or he was to kill Candaules, marry her, and so become king himself.

Dumbfounded by being found out and by the queen’s proposal Gyges decided to live and with the queen’s connivance, killed Candaules and so became king of Lydia.

The populace was stunned and outraged at such a violent change in leadership. They agreed, however to consult the Oracle of Delphi. If she agreed then Gyges would be king.

And so it was, with the warning prediction that retribution would be visited upon the fifth generation of Gyges’ descendants. Over the years this was forgotten. The prediction was however fulfilled when the fourth descendant was killed and the Lydians defeated, when they were attacked by the Persians under Cyrus the Great.

Hubris seems always to invite Nemesis, the Goddess of retribution and undeserved good fortune and who is implacable in her pursuit of tracking every wrong back to its doer. 

Whatever course of action is started must be completed, no matter how long it takes. 

“Take what you want from Life,” says God. “Take it, and pay”. 

Indeed!

The Scapegoat – and why we use it.

Amended: October 25, 2018.

This ancient form of “displacement” activity is still very prevalent today. And it is really very simple. It is a form of aggression used to relieve frustration (in a person, a group, or society in general) that is usually directed at a weaker person (or group) that is unable to retaliate – and can thus be easily blamed for causing the frustration.

The scapegoat is usually distinct, easily identifiable and “different” from the more dominant person or group thus justifying the aggression and prejudice – “they are not us” – and so - “it is their fault!”

An intense frustration directed at some individual or group (which cannot be easily assuaged) gives rise to what is known as a “Frustration – Aggression - Displacement Hypothesis” and thus a Scapegoat is found.

We all, each one of us, thinks or believes, that we are “good” – no one believes, deep down, that they are “bad”. So if any untoward event causes us to look in the “mirror” as it were, and we see ourselves unfavourbly reflected in the face or eyes of another, we may be shocked or dismayed at what we see. This will often give rise to denial – “that’s not me!” 

We therefor blame the “scapegoat”. And more often than not there is extreme violence applied to the scapegoat – sometimes death. 

Many examples of “scapegoating” are recorded in history – the Bible is a good source. Two tragic, unfortunate but classic, more recent, scapegoat examples were the racial aggression (extrajudicial action that led to the lynching of African Americans) in the Southern States of the USA. As the price of cotton fell and the slaves were freed (causing frustration as economic opportunities for the white people were reduced) the African Americans (all either former slaves or descended from slaves) were blamed and the numbers of lynching increased as the economy in the Southern States tanked (prejudice and displaced aggression). 

The other was the anti-Semitism, the prejudice, aggression and extreme measures directed at the Jews in Nazi Germany in the period leading up to the Second World War. In this case the Jews were targeted and blamed, by Hitler, for the economic and political crisis that arose after Germany suffered the humiliation of firstly losing the First World War and then being forced to pay massive reparations as determined by the 1920 Treaty of Versailles. Again, an example of frustration leading to displaced aggression against a weaker group.

The Jews were in no position to retaliate and six million were killed, just as the African Americans had no recourse against the Ku Klux Klan and the judicial system applying at that time. It is believed that about 3500 African Americans were lynched.  

Now, today, it is Mexican “drug addicts, rapists and undocumented immigrants swarming across the border” between Mexico and the USA. 

Now, today, it is Islamic fundamentalists not willing to integrate and trying to subject Europe to Sharia Law, also taking jobs from hard working Christian Europeans. 

Now, today, it is “illegal boat people” and “asylum seekers” still trying to flood into Australia. 

Now, today, it is “criminal elements” within the ethnic minority Muslim Rohingya causing problems in Buddhist Myanmar. 

Now, today, it is immigrants causing violent crimes, taking jobs and causing the funding problems with the UK’s National Health Services.

Now today we have the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince authorising(?) the murder and dismembering of Jamal Khashoggi  in Turkey (he was a  journalist who wrote for the Washington Post and who annoyed the Prince). Khashoggi exposed corruption and the Saudi involvement in the "war" in Yemen. And this was in the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul, no less. 

They too have no recourse - none of them.

The scapegoat is always chosen because it is easy to victimize without fear of retaliation.

As the Nazi Hermann Goering ominously warned the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial (1946): “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

The Seal of Confession and "weasel words".

Few things get up my nose and arouse my ire like injustice and people, or organisations, using “weasel words” to try and escape scrutiny and to try and maintain their authority! It is almost as if their only “crime” was to be caught! Doesn’t seem to matter what they did.

In relation to the recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuses, the Catholic Church used their response to argue, 

“.. that children would be less safe if mandatory reporting of confessions was required.

A perpetrator or victim might be less likely to raise abuse in confession if confidence in the sacramental seal was undermined,” the response said.

So an opportunity would be lost to encourage a perpetrator to self-report to civil authorities or victims to seek safety," it said.

And then Archbishop Coleridge went on to compare the “sacramental seal of confession” to client-lawyer privilege and journalistic protection of sources. 

Less safe! And “protection” similar to client-lawyer privilege! To protect a paedophile Catholic in a House of God! And then to claim that an abused child would be less safe! Words fail me – I’m staggered that anyone, anyone, would make such a claim. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Weasel words indeed! It seems at all costs protect the “Sacred” institution of the Catholic Church!!!

In relation to the Church’s response, mentioned above, I repeat here something I wrote sometime ago – that I think it is worth repeating.

The Confessional:

As I understand it, this requirement was originally imposed in the Middle Ages, at least in part, by church leaders who expected priests to interrogate penitents and learn if they might be heretics. 

Confession and the authority to grant absolution also greatly enhanced the power of the priest. With sins absolved, the believer would gain heaven. Without absolution, death could bring the spiritual pain of purgatory or the eternal damnation of hell.

It would appear that from the very beginnings of the confessional, practices varied widely among both priests and laypeople. Some clergy emphasized compassion and forgiveness and faithfully kept secret what they heard. Others exploited their power and the information captured during the sacrament. The 11th-century monk Peter Damian (1007 – 1072) famously excoriated clerics for the sexual abuse of minors, which often began with the penitent-confessor relationship. In the later Middle Ages, apparently criminality among confessors was widespread and entrenched. Much of the criminality involved sexual assaults and priestly transgressions against the church's sexual mores (later adopted as a rule or canon).

So, what’s new? There is nothing “sacred” about the “seal” of confession – quite the reverse. At best a priest should be acting only as a counselor for a troubled parishioner, someone to talk openly with – not hide behind a screen. To me – hiding behind a screen while confessing, to God presumably, is hypocritical in the extreme. I mean where is God in all this? Is God only “up there?”; or only in a “house of God”; or, as I strongly suspect “everywhere”! If God is everywhere there is no place to hide – least of all behind a screen! 

Furthermore does a “sinner” require absolution from a priest – also possibly a “sinner” himself - to “return to God”? Please!! 

The Catholic Church has no claim to any “moral authority” while it hides behind its so-called inviolable “laws of the Church”. They are nothing of the sort.

It’s high time they realised that this is the 21 Century – after the birth of the man they profess to worship – the man of peace, the man of love!

What we can learn from the past – Take 2

Another of Aesop’s Fables. 

I wonder to whom this may apply – anyone you know?

The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf.

A shepherd boy who tendered his flock not far from a village, used to amuse himself at times by crying out “Wolf! Wolf!” His trick succeeded two or three times, and the whole village came running to his rescue.

However, the villagers were simply rewarded with laughter for their pains.

One day the wolf really did come, and the boy cried out in earnest. But the neighbours thought that he was up to his old tricks and paid no attention to his cries.

Consequently the sheep were left at the mercy of the wolf.

Moral: Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed.

Voting for a lie and Compulsory Voting.

In relation to the examples of the current crowd of self-serving, venial, crassly stupid politicians in Canberra (in my view) I offer the following for those who may be interested. 

My question: Why am I forced to vote for a lie and liars (on pain of a penalty for NOT voting)? I personally have yet to be convinced that compulsion is comfortably associated with democratic principles. 

As a concerned citizen I regard the impact of certain measures and policies the current Federal Government (the LNP) has outlined since the election that we were not asked to vote for – and I might add this applies also to previous administrations – as unacceptable.

My concerns are about what we are told (promised?) prior to an election but then are told after the election that what was promised were not “core promises” (Re: Tony Abbott in 2014 - what is a “core promise” pray tell?). Why do politicians bother to say something (“read my lips”) but then conveniently forget or ignore or use “weasel words” to deny that it was said at all?  Surely a tax is a tax and promise is a promise in any language?

My concerns are about what are we compelled to vote for – a lie? Is this morally and ethically acceptable? Is this legal? Is this democratic?   

Most people are well aware that trust takes a long time to develop but may be lost in an instant - recall the (Howard era) “Tampa” affair and the “children overboard” allegations; recall the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government “flip flop” on a “mining tax”; recall the lack of transparency, the secrecy, the want of compassion and kindness enveloping the LNP’s activities relating to “illegal” refugees and the events on Manus Island and Nauru, (all done in the name of Australia – i.e. in MY name); note the blatant unfairness of many current budget measures - and so it goes on!! 

To understand what I am getting at it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about morals and justice some twenty-five centuries ago (The Analects – trans. Simon Leys):- 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

In light of the astounding levels of abuse of position, the lying and lack of moral leadership shown by many of this country’s leaders, I truly believe that it is time for every politician to stop, take a step back and really examine their actions to see whether they make any sense. 

As an example, I was told in a letter, (in my possession and dated 9^thJanuary 2014) from Malcolm Turnbull (in reply to my concerns) that (and I quote):- 

“I would like to take this opportunity to assure you the Government does not have any current plans to privatise or reduce the ABC’s funding. The Government understands the significant relationship the ABC has with the Australian public and is committed to maintaining its quality, performance and efficiency.”

In the 2014 Budget (only some four months after this letter) the LNP reduced the ABC’s budget allocation by hundreds of millions of dollars – described as an “efficiency dividend”! They are still doing this – still cutting the ABC’s funding in both the 2017 and 2018 budgets.

And we HAVE to vote? Please!!  

Another curiosity - I notice that in the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) website in the FAQ section the last point in the ‘Arguments in Favour of Compulsory Voting’ states: “The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.”

I find this an astonishing statement – it is of course true, but somewhat defeats the purpose of compulsory voting!

Furthermore I notice that (Federally) informal votes average round about 5 per cent. This, in actual numbers for the 2016 election, equates to about 720 000 people who for various reason “spoiled” their vote. 

There were approximately 630 000 people “missing” from the electoral rolls. That’s a lot.

Now if you add “spoiled” papers to those “missing” this equates to about 1.35 million people who didn’t actually vote out of the about 16.8 million Australians who were eligible to vote or about 8 per cent. That’s also a lot of people.

Also there was a record low level of voter interest in the 2016 federal election, and record low levels of satisfaction with democracy and trust in government. Only 60 per cent of voters were satisfied with democracy in Australia, the lowest level since the 1970s. Apparently.

It appears that about one in five people (20 per cent) believe that politicians who they voted for won’t make any difference, up from 13 per cent in 2007. University research also finds some weakening in the perception that people in government can be trusted to “do the right thing”. Strange that!

There has to be a reason for this and I suggest that “disenchantment” with politicians is the prime cause. If politicians did not have the comfort of knowing that their margin was X% (because of polling data and compulsory voting) they might actually get out on the road and “stump” their electorate and find out what their electorates real concerns are. As an example, I emigrated to Australia in January 1982 – in the intervening years I have lived at five locations in and around Perth (Western Australia) yet no Federal candidate has bothered to call at my house; only in the last few years, since moving to a retirement village, has a candidate’s “flyer” even landed in my mail box! 

If they show that much interest in me, what level of interest should I show in them?

I suggest that the AEC consider recommending that “compulsory” should be removed from the Electoral Act particularly as we are “not compelled to vote for anyone”? The candidates would then “be compelled” to do the rest! 

A possible reversion to the 1911 compulsory enrolment concept (all eligible people were required to enrol as voters) may be a good alternative. Many people may not be aware that France has a highly efficient registration process. At the age of eighteen, all French youth are automatically registered. Similarly, in Nordic countries all citizens and residents are included in the official population register, which is simultaneously a tax list, voter registration, and membership in the universal health system. This is also the system in Germany (but without the membership in the health system) – with an 86% average voter turnout. [I referred to Wikipedia for some of this information].

Compulsory voting in Australia is an unnecessary “impost” on the population.

Such a change, as recommended above, would I believe, still fulfil the AEC’s primary role in ensuring that it delivers a free and fair election.

Such a change would also free up resources wasted on prosecuting those who did not bother (or refused) to cast their vote – for a lie!

Arouse the electorate’s interest and people will vote – the blatant lies, the unfairness, lack of trust, disinterest and boredom, and the crass stupidity of some parliamentarians, are the problem - it is a case of “the same old, same old”. 

And we HAVE to vote??

What we can learn from the past.

I just happened to open a book of Aesop’s Fables that I have not read for many a long year. Some are very apt – even after some 2500 years since they were first collected. 

For those that may have forgotten or didn’t know, Aesop is thought to have been a freed slave and lived for a while in Athens, round about 600BC.

Here are two of his fables that some may feel are apposite today:-

The two bags. 

According to ancient lore every man is born into the world with two bags suspended from his neck – one in front and one behind, and both are full of faults. But the one in front is full of his neighbour’s faults; the one behind, full of his own. Consequently, men are blind to their own faults but never lose sight of their neighbour’s.

Sound familiar?

The trees and the axe.

A woodsman went into the forest and petitioned the trees to provide him with a handle for his axe. It seemed so modest a request that the principle trees granted it right away, and they declared that the plain homely Ash should furnish what was needed. No sooner had the woodsman fitted the staff for his purpose, however, than he began chopping down the noblest trees in the woods. By the time the Oak grasped the entire matter it was too late, and he whispered to a neighbouring Cedar, “With our first concession we lost everything. If we had not sacrificed our humble neighbour, we might still be able to stand for ages”.

Moral: When the rich surrender the rights of the poor, they provide a handle to be used against their own privileges.

Again, sound familiar?

Conform or be an Individual?

This has confused me and I know there has been discussion, sometimes acrimonious, about the merits of striving to be an individual over the easier route of just conforming. This is when the “best for the community” is put before the individual. Now in this regard I’m referring not just to religious conforming when “everyone” has to think and believe a certain way or be called an “apostate” or “heretic”. This, religious conformism, seems to be fading somewhat in the world today – certainly when it comes to Christianity. It used to be that everyone went to church at least once a week – now many churches are almost empty.  

What I’m thinking about is the “autocratic” type of conforming – Turkey, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, North Korea – even to a certain extent it now appears, in the USA. In these countries only government approved media is permitted and only government approved public expression of views is allowed. All else is “fake news”, or at least contrary to “approved” news and purveyors of such news may be jailed or at the very least may be “pilloried” by the authorities and in social media.

Many of us, certainly in my age group, will remember pictures of China under the autocratic rule of Chairman Mao, where everyone had to wear the regulation blue boiler-suit and carry the “Red Book” of his pronouncements and avoid, at all costs, being termed a counter revolutionary. And where “re-education camps” were widely used.

I’m wondering whether we actually need to conform as traditionally portrayed. We cannot all think and act the same. Humans are just not made that way. This is why I believe that Soviet Communism failed and why any autocratic regime will also ultimately fail. Trying to suppress an individual’s ideas and aspiration just builds up pressure and a great deal of stress. 

Yes, certainly, we humans are social beings. We need to have contact with other like-minded people. It’s just the way we are. This is why families have always been seen as vital to any society. But do I need a government to tell me how I should behave with “foreigners” or what and who to believe, or which social media is appropriate?

No! 

We have to be given the freedom to think and act for ourselves (within certain parameters of the law). The stress of conforming has its downside. For instance Japan, a highly “conformist” society, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. 

What we have to guard against is the prevalent but very old concept of the “scapegoat” – blame someone or some group for your own troubles. In Australia it’s the “boat people” or “illegal immigrants” invading our carefully guarded borders; in the USA it’s Mexican drug addicts and rapists invading the country; in (nominally) Christian countries in Europe it’s the Islamists wanting to impose Sharia law and upsetting the old traditions; in strict Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran it’s decadent Western ideas polluting the minds of the young – with such unseemly things as dancing, different sexes swimming together or even watching a football match. 

As the Nazi Hermann Goering warned at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial (1946): “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

We all need to be very vigilant.