Even The Dismissal was not a subversion of democracy. It was a dissolution of parliment and an invocation of democracy: taking us to an election. I was a little kid, so obviously wasn’t involved in the politics at the time. My dad was a die-hard Labor voter and he was furious. So, my personal memories of it are very anti-Fraser/Kerr as a result of that influence in my formative years.
But for all of that, I concede that the Government needs to be accountable to someone. I believe we need an “emergency stop” button in our constitutional makeup. I just don’t think the one time it was used was a valid emergency. I think history has the same conclusion - that was not the way the power should be invoked. I doubt it’ll happen again like that.
Marsupial@quokk.au 8 months ago
An unelected person or persons, being given control over government is not democratic.
The government if it has to exist, needs only to be accountable to the citizens it exists to serves.
Nath@aussie.zone 8 months ago
Well, if it’s baked into our constitution, the implementation of such a role is created by a democratic process. So, while the individual may not be directly elected, we (or our ancestors in our case) did vote the position into existence. I wouldn’t be against this person being elected directly under some future constitution, though I have concerns how they could maintain their distance from our politics if that were the case. That is a question I’d want adressed.
Conversely, a government without such a role leads to what our friends in the USA have. A system that gets bogged down in stupid politics so badly that they literally shut down their whole government every few years over their political in-fighting. They don’t have anyone to force them to behave. I wouldn’t want that.