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??

Modern Democracies – WHY VOTE?

It is good to have my feelings about politicians supported by an august journal such as the New York Times - I thought my one loyal reader might be interested in the following quote from the NYT:- 
 
"The Worst Voter Turnout in 72 Years

 Turnout this month was the lowest in any federal election since 1942.

Showing up at the polls is the best way to counter the oversized influence of wealthy special interests, who dominate politics as never before. But to encourage participation, politicians need to stop suppressing the vote, make the process of voting as easy as possible, and run campaigns that stand for something.

Over all, the national turnout was 36.3 percent; only the 1942 federal election had a lower participation rate at 33.9 percent. The reasons are apathy, anger and frustration at the relentlessly negative tone of the campaigns.

During the same period, negative campaigning has become ubiquitous in the United States and elsewhere and has been shown to impact voter turnout. Attack ads and smear campaigns give voters a negative impression of the entire political process.”

The sentiments expressed above fit very well with my thoughts and feelings regarding the 2013 Australian General Election. The only difference is that in Australia there is that odd “democratic” law that voting is compulsory (and people are fined for NOT voting). But informal votes – “invalid” votes - have increased from 2.1% in 1983 to 5.9% in 2013 (approx. 940 000 voters out of a total of approx. 15.9 million on the electoral roll).

The NYT editorial’s comments about running campaigns that mean something and voters “apathy, anger and frustration at the relentlessly negative campaigns” certainly resonates with me. Even with Australia’s “compulsory democracy” the actual voter turnout for the 2013 election was only about 81% and even lower if the 1 million odd Australians living overseas who did not bother to vote (or were not even on the electoral roll) are taken into account.

As in the USA there has to be a reason for this low turnout and I suggest that “disenchantment” with politicians is the prime cause – lack of trust and because politicians lie. They say one thing (“read my lips”) before an election but then promptly ignore this and do something which was not voted for.

Politicians need to treat voters as human beings with hopes and aspirations and not merely as an inconvenient, if necessary, means to get elected and politicians need to give voters something relevant to actually vote for - then see the voter engagement improve!!

The Australian version of Democracy

It is difficult to gauge how democracy is travelling in “democratic” countries. I speak particularly about Australia (where I live) which is touted as one of the strongest democracies in the world.

That I (and my wife) are pensioners (I am 73 and retired only one working day before my 72^nd birthday) and have no income other than the Government provided Age Pension, is incidental to my concerns.

My concerns are about what it is we are forced to vote for (on pain of a penalty for NOT voting).

For those who may be unaware of this curious fact, Australia has compulsory voting –whether you like any of the candidates or not, whether you like their policies or not, whether you like it or not, you have to vote – or face a fine for NOT voting.

I personally am not sure that compulsory voting is actually democratic, but this again is incidental to my concerns.

My concerns are about what we are told (promised?) prior to an election but then are told after the election that what was said is not going happen; that these promises were not “core promises”. What is a “core promise” pray tell? Why 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 promise is a promise in any language?

My concern is about what it is that we are actually forced to vote for – a lie? Is this an example of being a good role model? Is this how leaders are supposed to behave? Is this an open, accountable and “mature Government”? Is this a Government that can be trusted?

Trust takes a long time to develop but can be lost in an instant. To understand what I am getting at it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about this some twenty-five centuries ago:

 “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 lack of trust and moral leadership shown - and admitted – by many leaders (political, business and religious or in fact any position with monetary significance), I truly believe that it is time for everyone to stop, even take a step back and look, I mean really examine, their actions and see whether they make any sense. For example, just look at the corruption, the appalling moral and ethical short comings exposed by the various commissions of enquiry currently underway in Australia (into child sexual abuse and into corrupt union activities). Think about the financial scandals in England and the USA (LIBOR, Wall Street and “banks too big to fail”); the International Olympic games organization (athletes and performance enhancing drugs and also bribes being paid to officials); the International Football Federation (“ditto”); international cycling (“ditto”); international pharmaceutical companies (using corrupt methods to enhance sales of products with doubtful efficacy); using children as slave labour to produce low priced garments - the list just goes on and on and on!   

And then as a further Australian example, I was told in a letter (dated  9^th January 2014) from Malcolm Turnbull ( the Australian Minister for Communications) 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.”

The ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is owned and fully funded by the government - but three months later Turnbull cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from their budget allocation (possibly out of spite – the ABC, in the past, has dared to criticize the current government).

And we HAVE to vote for these people? Please!!

I believed Prime Minister, Tony Abbott when he said, before the recent general election, that there would be no changes to the Aged Pension or to Medicare, but there are changes. In light of the 2014 Budget cuts are these the words of a trustworthy man? All the cuts to health and education, and the reductions to benefits and allowances are, ostensibly, designed to “improve the economy” and balance the budget.

The trouble is the “Economy” is not some esoteric, alien “thing” somewhere out there. Without people there would be no economy – the economy IS people, the citizens of this country. The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) and Treasurer (Joe Hockey) may well “balance the budget”- the Federal Budget - and help the “economy”, but they cannot ignore what the States do because they affect the “economy” as well. We are supposed to be the Commonwealth of Australia after all. But if they, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, hand-ball the hard work to the States (funding health and education) why do we need a Federal Government – or if you prefer why have State Governments? Having both, singing from different hymn books, does not serve.

If people have less money to spend (because of the afore mentioned budget constraints) how is the economy supposed to grow? It is worth repeating that the economy is made up from people – more money and confidence and it grows; less money and less confidence and it contracts.      

Who do we trust? No wonder there is a rise in the number of independents and micro-parties – if we HAVE to vote might as well vote for something or someone novel.

It is worth asking what we ACTUALLY vote for – what politicians SAY they will do or what they ACTUALLY do – which is discovered only after the event?

And Australians are penalised for not voting. Democracy indeed!

Duty

There are few things that get up my nose more than injustice and cruelty. These two words (and the activities they refer to) will overlap to a greater or lesser degree and in some instances they may equate to the same thing. A cruel act will almost certainly be unjust and in many instances an injustice may be cruel. And then there are the overriding aspects of morality and ethics. Of a certainty, whatever activity or behaviour is unjust or cruel cannot be either moral or ethical.

The other day Archie asked for my comments on activities which are often disguised as, or confounded with, “Duty”, but are really cruel and/or unjust.

Now ‘duty’ is an old word, certainly going back to Anglo-Norman times. But it is unfortunately, often misunderstood. I know “duty” gets mixed up with obeying orders (in the military or paramilitary forces and in judicial or extra-judicial matters). It also gets a bad rap from the appalling revelations about the actions of totalitarian or quasi-totalitarian governments, and unfortunately some “democratic” governments such as  “renditions” when Americans sent (send?) suspected terrorists to countries that are prepared to sanction torture to extract information – “I was just obeying orders”. In my lexicon, however, “duty” has an ethical basis. It has a basis in an action for the benefit of others; a duty of care – almost an obligation. My old stand-by the Oxford English Dictionary defines duty as, “That which is owed; a debt of money, goods or service; the action or behaviour due by moral or legal obligation; action required by one’s business, occupation or function.”

But and it is a big but, as has been said before by others, “duty is not only about doing things right, it is about doing the right thing.” Typically, the demands of justice, honour, and reputation are “imbedded” with duty.

Of course, historically, as mentioned above, totalitarian regimes – and it is a depressingly long list, all, under the guise of “keeping public order” and therefore their “duty”, maintain(ed) an appalling level of control and vicious retaliation against any dissent. Religious persecution also has a large part to play in this – excommunications; witch hunts; death by stoning for blasphemy and such other extremes.   

It is a proven fact that when the conditions are appropriate (if that is the correct word) we are all capable of involvement in such extreme activities - all of us – individuals, governments, corporations and businesses included. We all need “over sight” to ensure that we do not lose our sense of proportion; do not lose our humanity. Without a “duty of care” civilisation would not be what it is. Not everyone agrees, which is why we have laws, rules and regulations.

Free speech is the basic tenet of democracy – all other “rights” stand or fall on this one fundamental, (the freedom to worship and freedom to meet and congregate with whomsoever). The exceptions (there are always exceptions) are that child pornography, engaging in or depicting sexual violence, inciting criminal activity, defamation or slander or engaging in the persecution of any ethnic group are generally strictly forbidden and legislated against. Similarly activities that engage in or encourage corruption, malpractice or fraudulent behaviour are legislated as crimes.

Obeying orders and doing one’s Duty is no excuse for harming another person.