Why don’t we have all our politicians take a simple test: A
leadership test?
If the leaders cannot motivate people to support them, they don’t get elected.
If they can’t lead, they don’t get to lead.
It takes a real leader to inspire action and motivate support. This is the leadership test that applies in most democracies around the world.
In most democracies leaders who are not able to inspire support simply don’t get votes. In Australia we force everyone to attend the polling booth, so our leaders only need to be slightly less repulsive than their opponent. They don’t need to inspire or motivate anyone.
A positive spin-off from testing our leaders in such a way is that electors like to be inspired. They respond well to good leadership and more people tend to participate when their decision to vote or attend the polling booth is purely democratic. Or based on hope rather than the fear of a penalty.
In New Zealand, for example, they have relatively high voter turnouts but over there, people only vote because they want to vote. Here, our voter turnouts include a high proportion of invalid votes, donkey votes, and blind guesses; so while our actual voter turnouts are 81%, the real participation rate could be as low as 60%. Who knows?
We shouldn’t assume that just because people show up and vote, they are engaged or informed. The only true test of this is if people vote because they want to vote.
If fact, there are many nations with voluntary voting that have higher voter turnouts than we do, even at our inflated 81%. Countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland all have higher voter turnouts than we do. This is partly because their leaders can inspire people to vote using peaceful means.
Threats of violence don't inspire people and they can actually repel people from the electoral process, which skews the election results due to the sampling error or selection bias it creates. This is far from democratic. In a democracy, everyone should have the same free equal choice to vote without any coercion from the government.
Arguably high voter turnouts are a result of good leadership. But how do we define good leadership in Australia? Is it based on our leaders ability to educate, inform, and inspire people with good ideas; or is it based on their ability to use force to press us into submission? Sure leaders need power, but not until we give it to them.
When voting is voluntary the would-be leaders who are not able to educate, inform, inspire, motivate or empower the electorate are replaced by leaders who can. True democratic leaders.
So while our political duopoly enacts ridiculous legislation after ridiculous legislation and limits our freedoms in so many other ways, ask yourself, would this happen if we lived in a true democracy?
If you think we have the government we deserve, maybe it’s already too late. But this writer thinks we’re not as stupid as our leaders would have us all believe.
Unfortunately if the government’s oppressive tactics continue, we soon will be.
Jason Kent
The rights to lead and power to do so have been steadily stolen from the people by the political parties.
Just mention Independent to politicians from any party, watch them go red and apoplectic and listen to the uniform rant that they respond with, "A vote for an independent is a wasted vote." The major parties have contrived to make it almost impossible for true independent representatives to fund the costs involved in standing for parliament.
Today, we don't get to participate in selection of parliamentary leaders because the parties have used their marketing managers to winkle these out from the lacklustre party politicians behind the party room doors. Leadership is not a strong point in the process. Saleability, pollster appeal and vote-gathering is. Power to the People is gone, replaced by Power to the Party.
Wait until the inevitable Republic rears its head again and watch as the parties join forces to move all remaining power and electorate leadership into their own hands. Away from the gullible masses and gone from the original concept of true Australian Democracy. This will be done via the committee process, not by any clear leadership qualities of any claiming to be leaders at the time.
I don't want a Liberal Australia , a Labour Australia, especially a Green Australia, a Socialist Australia or UN-sponsored Australia. I want an Independent Democratic Australia. Am I being selfish?
Posted by: Grumpyoldman2 | October 13, 2012 at 12:32 PM