Andrew, Chris and I had a good chat today about the differences between the American and Australian political systems and how elements of each could be introduced to the other to reform them and make them more democratic. Andrew’s point was that the two-party system in the USA still allows a multitude of voices to be heard from one party during things such as the Primary campaign. Chris and I argued that the American Primary system is so broken that it is un-(and anti-)democratic.
The diversity of views doesn’t arise from the two party system, as Andrew believes, but from the separation of the branches of government. Because the head of government is directly elected, it is possible for the parties to debate issues internally and show these debates to the public. Party discipline is less strict than in Australia because the President doesn’t have to rely on the support of their own party’s majority in the Houses of Congress to decide the direction the nation will take. In Australia, the Prime Minister must enjoy the confidence of the House of Representatives (lest a motion of “no confidence” be passed and the PM forced to the polls) in order to govern. As a result, party discipline is enforced by Whips and “rebel” MPs may lose their preselection should they cross the floor to bring down a government Bill.
Andrew wonders what it would’ve been like if the Liberals had’ve got together and debated, publicly, their policies about a year out from the last election, in the way that American parties hold primaries. Well, for starters, they would have been slaughtered electorally for not showing that they could maintain a stable government. The factionalism in the party would’ve been brought to the fore and Howard, the PM at the time, had his record junked by moderates and opportunists such as Turnbull. In Australia, the Head of Government is the leader of the party and hands out Ministerial portfolios to those elected alongside them. As such, dragging a sitting PM’s reputation through the mud is likely to lead to a prolonged stay on the back benches. In America, members of Congress can speak out against their party’s Presidential nominee without fear of retribution as it is not the President who decides committee leadership and it’s quite rare that Cabinet members are drawn from Congress.
So, how do we reform Australia’s political system so that the internal difference of opinion can be heard by the public? Parliamentary leaders often set the agenda for their party even in the face of strong opposition from the party at large (just ask Morris Iemma). My first suggestion is allowing the party rank and file to choose the parliamentary leaders. This worked well for the Australian Democrats who, after the Senators caused a spill, re-elected the same leader in a show of where their support lies. The idea works well for small parties who don’t have to put themselves forward as a potential government because there’s not so much at risk and the internal ballots won’t be as much of a numbers game. Could it work for a party like the ALP?
Secondly, amending the Constitution to exclude Senators from being chosen as Ministers. The Senate is, at least it was, a house of review which acts as a check on the government. If Senators are Ministers, it can be argued that they’d have a hard time voting against government policy. This separation of powers would give us a political system similar to the Americans’ in that party unity in the Senate is not so strict and the legislation can be debated on its merits rather than having debate shut down by a government eager to have its Bills passed with as little scrutiny as possible. A government, holding at least 70 of 150 seats (in a minority government with support of Independents), should be able to find enough MPs to cobble together a Ministry. Ministers, as Chris pointed out today, are very rarely experts in their fields and have government departments and advisors to help them make the decisions.
Thirdly, a direct election of the Head of Government. I’m not a fan of the direct election republican model and I’m certainly not a fan of a popularly elected Executive President/Governor-General. Still, separating the Executive from the Legislative branches would go some way to allowing the Legislative branch to debate various proposals in a frank and fearless manner. I’m a fan of the Westminster system even though I do think it could do with a bit of fixing (open list PR in the House of Reps, for example) and think a move to a directly elected popular President would put a lot of Australians offside, as we’re generally distrustful of politicians.
It’s quite a doozy, isn’t it?
