important.
The public funding produces considerable complacency, and not a little failure of accountability to members.
Some years ago, a legal action against Pauline Hanson followed state Electoral Office allegations that she was running a pseudo-political party she entirely controlled, designed to milk into her own pocket, the public funding coming from the votes she was gathering.
The premise is that parties were democratic structures, subject to the law, accountable to party memberships, receiving grants which should be directed towards the party's interests.
One must wonder whether the major parties could live up to such requirements.
This is not a worry that funds are diverted to improper purposes. It is, instead a concern that the money is spent without any serious regard to supposedly democratic and accountable membership structure.
The members, simply, have no say at all. Those who demanded some right to participate in what was done would be quickly shoved out of the way.
Insiders, indeed, refer to parties as "brands", not as organic organisations subject to deliberately difficult processes of making decisions, allowing a maximum of participation, if with a system of battening down the hatches once binding decisions are arrived at.
The increasing lack of relevance and respect accorded to party membership, or democracy within parties, fits into a general pattern of less and less public participation in much community activity.
Most could be forgiven for giving up involvement. Monthly party meetings at 8.30pm in the public library are a deadly bore, especially to the young or people leading busy lives.
The pattern of participation was set in about 1890 and much has changed in society since.
Oddly, all the modern technology and the internet ought to be improving communication and participation.
But it isn't, and sporting clubs and cultural organisations suffer as much as political parties.
Some subjects which can attract the passions - the environment, the need for action on climate change, events in the Middle East and education for example. Matters may mobilise people, not into party branches but on to the streets. It is vital that parties adapt.
But the sad thing is that most of the major parties are not very interested in broadening their bases, increasing their memberships, or having debates about what ought to be done.
They might, in theory, agree on the need for it, but the idea of more consultation, more debate, more open government excites no enthusiasm whatever, from the prime minister down.
They do not see it as in their real interest. They are probably right, because a good many representatives would not be in Parliament were their work to be subject to better public scrutiny.
But it is not merely a matter of whether politicians can shelter themselves from the public.
A crisis of legitimacy and authority is involved. Government is getting more difficult. Many voters have turned off.
They are scathing of politicians and deeply cynical about their honesty and motives. Australia is by no means as far down this path as the United States, but Trump is a warning of what happens when people decide that conventional politics doesn't work.
UNQUOTE
#AusPol #HahahahaLiebs #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #ClimateCrisis #WeAreTotallyFscked #GreensYeah #WomensRights #WomensRepresentation 2/2