The romance over consultative elections have been at the heart of the Senate reference before the Supreme Court that we heard last week, but not to be outdone, the five alarm gong show known as Democracy Watch decided to raise the stakes, and propose that vice-regal consultative elections could be held, and that there would be no need to amend the constitution in order to achieve it.
No. Just no.
While this really great post will enumerate the problems of civic illiteracy that this ridiculous clown show proposal contains, I want to instead focus on the issue of “consultative elections” that both the Senate “reform” proposal and this latest Democracy Watch stunt have in common.
The problem with consultative elections is the inherent doublespeak at the very heart of them. On the one hand, the political rhetoric is that these consultative elections will demonstrate the will of the people, that these offices will be democratised and given a democratic legitimacy in order to somehow empower them more than they already are. But in the very same breath, they insist that no, these elections are just consultations, that they really don’t have to mean anything, that the Prime Minister can ignore them if he or she chooses to, and because of that, one doesn’t need to amend the constitution – err, except that the selection of Senators, vice-regal positions, and the powers of those vice-regal offices are all explicitly made mention of in the constitution. And there are amending formulae in the constitution if you want to change them, even if that formula is politically inconvenient for you.
This line of argument, that these consultations are meaningless on paper, was the predominant one used by government lawyers at the Supreme Court hearing in order to try and make these reforms by unilateral declaration of parliament. And to their credit, the Supreme Court justices pushed back against these arguments as they went against the notion that these positions were to be democratised. Justice Cromwell went even further and wondered that if consultative elections are non-binding and therefore don’t matter, then why not non-binding auctions for seats? If they’re also non-binding, then what was the problem with that? Oh, but the reply came, that if the PM could consult his friends, academics, or even a Ouija board, then why should he or she be prevented from consulting the electorate?
The reason that you can’t just do an end-run around amending the constitution and call elections “consultations” is because votes mean something. It grants a kind of legitimacy that is wholly different from the constitutional legitimacy that these positions currently enjoy. That’s the whole point of why the government or the clowns at Democracy Watch are calling for them. They want more empowered senators and vice-regal positions for the sake of creating even more partisan tensions in our system of government.
Never mind the tenets of Responsible Government, and the structured balance between democracy and accountability, as it exists currently. Never mind that so long as the Prime Minister enjoys the confidence of the Commons, he or she is not only entitled to make these appointments, but the constitution expects it. Add to that, the accountability rests with the Prime Minister. This is a system that has worked for nearly two centuries. Instead, the romance of republicanism and votes for everything has a number of proponents swept up, despite the fact that one can’t simply graft republican notions onto the system of Responsible Government. It just doesn’t work.
Even more ridiculous in this proposal by Democracy Watch is this notion that this could somehow be a non-partisan process. They think that an all-party committee to draw up three names that people would then vote on would somehow avoid these positions being politicised – but they are simply kidding themselves. What they seem to forget is that elections cost money, and money comes from fundraising, and guess who has the fundraising mechanisms in this country? The parties. And in order to run a country-wide direct election, consultative or not, it would cost multiple millions of dollars. Even if these were somehow funded entirely by public subsidy, there would still be partisanship, and these vice-regals would come in on some kind of a mandate, which their office doesn’t currently permit. How does this fit in with the notions of Responsible Government? It doesn’t.
But oh, let’s “democratise” everything, to hell with the consequences. And let’s try to do an end-run around the rules, because that’s the way we do things in liberal democracies. Why a group that claims to stand up for democracy would advocate this kind of nonsense is not only irresponsible, it’s an utter farce.