The Nature of State Power: The Farce of Democracy in Australia



Section Two

The Farce of Parliamentary Elections


Many people believe that the right to vote "representatives" into parliament somehow guarantees popular sovereignty; that such politicians will represent the wishes of the people - the "popular will" of the voters. This is not true:


1) Political Parties.

Supposedly, people get a "choice" of candidates. In reality, there are two large party blocs : the Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal-National Coalition. There are sometimes other parties, such as the Democrats, just as years ago there was the Democratic Labor Party (DLP). But all the major parties are multi-million dollar machines. These parties are funded by big business, unions (for the ALP), and foreign monied interests; and therefore tailor their political policies to suit their existing/prospective paymasters. The policies may "differ", but none of these policies go outside of the accepted Establishment norms. Thus, the voter has no real choice at all.

Many Australians have come to realise that politicians do not represent the voters, but instead represent their chosen Party, if not actually a particular Party faction; not to mention the interests of certain Party benefactors.


2) Voting Behaviour.

The media prevents a free choice of ideas by the mass of the people, as it normally only promotes the personalities, ideas, activities, and policies of the major parties. Further, the heavy weight of "tradition", bolstered by years of subtle media propaganda, usually keeps most voters in the camp of "their" party ("traditional voters"). Although more people are now "swinging voters", they normally only "swing" their vote from one major party to another major party as they are still trapped by the media's presentation of there being only two viable party blocs. However, on a positive note, in 1992 it was pointed out by Ted Mack (then the independent federal Member for North Sydney) that "The non-major party vote is now running at 20 to 24 per cent around Australia. It has grown from about four per cent in the last ten years".

Although more and more people are rejecting this false two party bloc system, we must count on it existing for a long time yet.


3) Elections.

The very process of our elections is designed to make the contest for government essentially into a "battle" only between the two party blocs. Elections for the House of Representatives (control of which determines who holds the power of Government) are based upon a system of preferential voting for single-member electorates, which almost but guarantees victory for one of the major Establishment parties (i.e. those with multi-million dollar budgets, provided by big sponsors, to cover newspaper, radio, TV, and other advertising; and who receive media attention, glorification, and validation - e.g. "even if an independent wins, he won't be part of the Government, thus our electorate will not receive proper attention").

The French electoral method of proportional representation allowed the anti-immigration Front National to gain seats in parliament, along with other smaller parties; from this the FN presence in parliament grew with each election - thus, the French Establishment changed the "rules of the game" and scrapped proportional representation in favour of single-member electorates, thereby neatly addressing the FN's growing electoral success. In the same way the major Establishment parties in Australia oppose proportional representation for the House of Representatives, on the excuse that "it would threaten stable government".

Aside from refusing proportional representation (which would allow greater representation of voters, i.e. allow greater democracy), the Australian political Establishment has enacted laws designed to "make things difficult" for smaller political parties. One example is that in order to have a candidate's political party listed beside his/her name on the ballot paper (which can gain more votes for smaller parties), the candidate has to belong to a "registered political party", which entails all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles, including submitting the names and addresses of at least 500 party members to the Electoral Commission (which could then be made secretly available to ASIO for inspection) - however, these requirements do not apply to those political parties who have a member in parliament (surprise, surprise!). Another example is that while public funding for election campaigns is available on a "dollar per vote"-style basis, such funding is only made available to those candidates who score above 4%, which neatly excludes the smaller parties - this 4% threshold allows all, or most, candidates of the two party blocs to receive public funding for their campaign expenses (again; surprise, surprise!).


4) Parliament.

The very essence of this institution is meant to perpetuate the domination of politics by the two party blocs. Supposedly, one party bloc "balances" the other; however, in actual fact, both sides "debate" issues only within a framework of loyalty to the broad cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology. They monopolise the chamber of parliament with neat rules, whereby the structure of debate centres around only the Government and its "Opposition". Parliament thus becomes a contest between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the two twins of the parliamentary farce.


Conclusion.

If both parties have a "bi-partisan" agreement on an issue (as in the case of immigration, tariffs, the U.S. alliance, multiculturalism, etc.) then there is very little the ordinary citizen can do to influence the voting and actions of his elected "representative". The citizen could try starting a new party, but in the current conditions of bourgeois democracy, the financial cost is too high. In those rare cases of an independent actually winning a seat, this is usually founded upon certain local conditions, and is normally based upon a local "personality" as a candidate - and, unlike a viable Nationalist candidate, would not be subject to continual smears and harassment from the Establishment media (and perhaps also from the political police).

Only the naive would mistake form for content in politics. The major Establishment parties are part of that "class" of Australians which has a cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology, and are closely tied to the world of big business as well as to certain powerful foreign interests. The form of the Establishment is "open and democratic", but the content is "closed and dictatorial".

The Establishment comprises various sectors and "institutions", such as parliament with its parties and politicians; the media with its journalists and editors; the courts with their judges; law enforcement with its policemen; the armed forces with its officers; etc. - thus we should see the Establishment not as a number of awe-inspiring "impartial-neutral institutions" but as simply a number of social sectors currently dominated by those who share a cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology or outlook.

These "institutions" are not staffed by neutral "angels", but by mere humans who are often willing to misuse their positions of power and influence to ensure the survival of their cosmopolitan-internationalist view of Australia. Although not acting in concert, these people will act in similar fashion to protect what they see as "right", and will often abuse their power to do so (in the case of the political police, and certain morally corrupt sectors of the police forces, this may include "illegal actions"). Thus, while the Establishment is no monolith (indeed, it includes often opposed and competing sectors), it is bound together by its cosmopolitan-internationalist creed, and will act to protect its "world" however it can.

Any movement for national freedom will be, and has been, denigrated as "unpatriotic". Those who demanded true independence were called "anti-British" (1870 to 1940), "anti-American" (1942 to 1980s), and now "anti-Asian and racist" (1980s to the present) and were/are moved against by the Establishment with both "legal" and illegal (criminal) force.

A new party has become necessary, and must fight to acquire State Power. It must be a party representing the great majority of our people, a patriotic Nationalist movement, ready to act to protect the independence and interests of the Australian Nation.




The Nature of State Power: The Farce of Democracy in Australia

Australian Nationalism Information Database - www.ausnatinfo.angelfire.com/~natinfo