One thing everyone can agree on: people, media and politicians: is that elections are important.
Democracy is the moral under-pinning of our political system. I remember watching the HBO documentary on Diebold and when it was shown that the electronic voting machines could be subverted the people who did the tests were distressed. One woman was openly crying. I understand her anguish - the whole basis for what she considered a just, moral, ethical and legitimate society was questioned. I am not surprised she was emotional.
Since Robert Askin election campaigns have been increasingly Presidential. Last election cycle John Howard and Mark Latham had a presidential debate. This is despite Australia having a parliamentary system where voters do not get to vote for the Prime Minister or Premier directly. Voters only have an implied control over the Executive. NSW is also under the grips of an election cycle and its two main protaganists, Morris Iemma and Peter Debnam recently had a gubernatorial debate. But Premiers are not Governors and elections are a poor determinant in NSW as to who will be Premier -
same as they are in the federal system
- and for that matter any parliamentary system.
Same deal as before, orange sectors are Premiers who have been removed by elections since 1932.
So what does this mean? Firstly, parliamentary systems give greater control over who the Executive is to parties than voters. That is an inherent function of parliamentary systems as a choice of representative democracy. This is a political technology choice in comparison to a Gubernatorial or Presidential system that has a separate executive which for most of the Australian government systems was made long before the current generations of voters were born. Victoria and NSW are two of the oldest parliamentary system in Australia and date back to the 1850s.
One of the reasons for term limits on the executive is to limit corruption and corruption has been an endemic problem in NSW governance. The pie graph shows that there is sufficient turn over of who leads the executive that term limits are probably not necessary - if they can be applied to a parliamentary system at all without breaking it. Yet corruption is not necessarily a function of who is leading the Executive, but a component that leaks in over time through which party controls the executive. In my opinion, eight years is a good rules of thumb by which corruption can only be flushed through a change in government - both legislative and executive.
This is where a democratic voting strategy of "kick the bastards out" after eight years and voting against the incumbent comes into play. However parties have increased their control in the second half of the twentieth century that they do not have the same electoral liabilities as they used to. NSW is a good example of that. We can effectively separate governance into two periods 1900-1932 and 1932-2007. Since the UAP gained power in 1932, politics has been dominated by the lethargic polarity between Labor and Liberal governments who hang around for long periods.
The next NSW Premier who gains government by an election has every reason to believe they will resign before they get voted out at an election. That is not a good threat to hold over the Executive who is the most prone of any branch of government to corruption. Fortunately for NSW there is ICAC which has unwittingly been a form of term limits on Nick Greiner and Bob Carr - chasing them both out through corruption investigations.
There still remains the tension between our democratic practices and our choice of political technologies. Our politicians run Presidential-Gubernatorial campaigns; our media reports on politics in a Presidential-Gubernatorial manner; and the electorate votes as if it is a Presidential-Gubernatorial system; yet the parliamentary system is none of those. Australia is mature enough to start introducing political systems that have a separate executive - it is not as if they are a new form of political technology.
The upcoming NSW election is a good example where a separate executive would have massive democratic value. I think it is fair to say that the electorate prefers Morris Iemma as Premier (executive) to Peter Debnam - yet the electorate desperately wants to stick the legislative boot into Labor for their recent performance and governance. In a Gubernatorial NSW system a Labor Executive and a Liberal Legislative would be a good out electoral outcome given the current political players in the NSW election.
But that can't happen in a parliamentary system. As one of the bigger states, NSW is a prime candidate for a directly elected Gubernatorial system. That would get my vote.
x-posted at clubtroppo
