Effectively, most African countries are plutocracies, where a small wealthy ruling elite skim off the majority of the countries' wealth.
Democracy, and especially the "Westminster System" of govt (with modifications such as USA and Oz), developed in a certain place and time because of factors that existed there and then. It developed out of a history of philosophical thought dating back to the ancient Greeks, but revisited and with the benefit of 2000 years of history, and improved upon.
Yet it is far from a perfect system. It's just the best idea we've come up with yet.
Essentially it gives 'the people' the feeling that they have some say in, and some control over, their lives.
Alas, it also engenders a 'political class' - or political elite - who seek office in order to inflict upon the rest of the community their particular world view.
The current debate here about whether or not to have a sovereign, permanent 'disaster relief fund' is a case in point. The minor parties are in favour of it, Labor is on the fence, but would probably agree to establish one, but the Libs are totally opposed because A) it's in their interest to oppose everything (being the Opposition after all) and because their fundamental dogma is "small govt and less taxation".
They opposed Medicare on the same basis, as did the conservative Republicans in the US for the same reason.
Personally, I think it's a great idea, especially if it was set up to be 1% per annum until funds reached 20 billion (est of current disaster relief needs). This could then be invested and the 'tax' lowered progressively over the next so many years until it was effectively self-sustaining.
My idea of an ideal govt is one in which the members would be appointed by ballot, based on the electoral role, and people thus "elected" would be required to serve one year, but could voluntarily do an additional two years, with only re-employment assistance at the end, no ongoing pension.
This would be truly "representative democracy".
I would insist that all meetings be chaired by a paid "moderator" in the interests of achieving, if not consensus, then at least significantly more than a simple majority (which is the current situation). Maybe set this at 60% and see how it works.
This would break the back of the "two party" system we currently suffer from, where you vote for Tweedledum or Tweedledumber or the Fairies from the Bottom of the Garden.
The current "Speaker" system, where the Speaker is *supposed* to keep order, mostly does not work, as they are appointed by the Parliament, in other words by whoever has the majority on the floor of the House.
A "paid appointed" facilitator, preferably one of many subcontractors who rotate between sittings and Parliaments around the country, would also help keep them unbiased, and perhaps they could be judges or magistrates....dunno....but independent!
Or, as Winston Churchill famously said the best form of government is a benign dictatorship - essentially what we have now (the Queen and GG) with the leavening of Parliament. Do away with Parliament and GG would have to sign legislation (decrees).
This might work fine now, with QB as GG, but how do we appoint a new one? Her offspring? QEII's offspring? Do we want Prince Harry as our Head of State?.
Gets problematic quickly doesn't it?
Participatory democracy is another idea with merit, and my "appointed politicians" idea comes from that view.
But expand it so that EVERY piece of legislation has to be put to a plebiscite. This could easily be done online (bearing in mind security would have to be monumental) but this was one of the ideas for the Australia Card.
My view is to use the existing system, not set up a new one. Patch the "plebiscite" software onto the banks existing ATM software, so you would have to vote before you could withdraw cash.
That would get people participating!!!
Then, for example, an "appointed politician" in the House, in the wake of the recent floods, might put up a motion to create a "Sovereign Disaster Relief Fund" and this idea would then go out to the people to vote on.
Then we'd know for sure if "the people" were in favour or not, rather than having to listen to the mealy-mouthed mutterings of vested interest groups who've weasled their way into power.
lol. It's hard to change if our minds are still so plagued with our own "modern" culture.
