Australia sits in a hiatus – waiting to decide which party will politically out manoeuvre the other to settle our hung parliament once and for all. It seems the electorate has given a definitive enough is enough – clearly unsatisfied with either party after an election that fought on scandal and personality rather than anything to do with sound policy for the betterment of the country. As Sir Henry Parkes, the founder of Australia’s Federation declared, “I have been disappointed in all my expectations of Australia, except as to its wickedness”.
With this as background, I felt it an appropriate time to wheel out a concept I call the People’s Policy Party (PPP) – Australia’s first ‘unparty’. The concept has been thrown around between myself and a few collaborators for some time now – Matt and Stu I won’t mention you by name in case you end up following me to jail for questioning federal democracy as we know it!
The premise of the PPP is simple:
It is no longer smart to leave policy making in the hands of elected politicians – rather it should be developed by experts that garner support and input from the electorate on a policy by policy basis. Before I outline how this could play out in practice, let’s first understand the issue with leaving policy in the hands of politicians as currently practiced:
- POLITICAL PARTIES are all about compromise and horse-trading so that only average policies that don’t rock the boat are implemented – for them it’s about the votes in marginal seats that are important.
- POLITICIANS are about short-term outcomes to get re-elected, not for what is best for the country in the long term. The vocation is no longer filled with the smartest and noblest because the media continues to reveal their shortcomings.
- PARTY LEADERS seem to have to cheat, promise and backstab their way to the top where they have to pay back their factions for their rise to power and stave off their many enemies that were trodden over in their wake.
- POLICIES are rarely more than announcements of intent with random numbers against a set of assumptions that were developed within a matter of weeks. This would rarely be satisfactory in the commercial sector for often much smaller quantities.
- MINISTERS are charged with a new portfolio of responsibility, often without ever having worked in that field, yet are somehow taken as the new experts as soon as they are appointed.
- ELECTORATES are full of unreasonable people who vote on their minority interests not always in the best interests of the country.
- DONORS give to political parties in the hope that their minority interests are protected and enhanced causing a massive stale-mate between policies that are good for the country and policies that protect the commercial interests of companies.
This sounds negative and, despite some good people involved in politics, the flawed basic premise often causes all of the worst in human nature to emerge and, in fact, results in something far removed from true democracy.
The good news is that we are finally at the cusp of being able to change the way our democratic system works through the use of technology and the support garnered from disenchantment with the current system and the growing public realisation that we should be focused on real reform over the longer term, not just window dressing.
To capitalise on this the PPP could have the following elements (still very much an uneducated political hypothesis in draft form):
- The PPP nominates a respected and well known luminary in a field to champion a particular policy on the condition that their workload finishes at the election. E.g. Cate Blanchet for an Arts and Entertainment Policy or Tim Flannery for Climate Change.
- The PPP nominee (on condition that they will be placed in an electorate they could never win) would oversee a group of experts to develop a number of public votable options.
- Through the internet and prior to an election, the nationwide public (those that care not those that have to vote) get to throw their support behind particular options and then the policy is finalised into an implementation ready form – much more comprehensive than the window dressing that makes up current policies.
- The PPP nominee would stand for a particular electorate aiming to use their public profile and the well-founded policy to achieve 10% of the vote (most seats are won or lost on less than this). A vote for the nominee is not a vote for all of the PPP’s policies, only for the one that was selected for that electorate to decide on behalf of the remainder of the country.
- Prior to the election, the PPP nominee would present the policy in its completed form to the major parties. If one party agrees then the PPP nominee gives their preferences to this party to ensure they are elected. If both agree to support it verbatim then the PPP nominee will stand down from the election. A video agreement by the member and their leader would be recorded to ensure they can’t back down from their pledge.
- The PPP has no elected leader, rather a council of respected leaders (that revolves after each election) and their only role is to appoint respected nominees and experts and match them with an electorate with less chance of bias towards that policy than the rest.
- The PPP does not have a policy stance and often a nominee who stands for one policy may not agree with another nominee’s policy – yet the voting separation should ensure they don’t need to see eye to eye on these issues, i.e. the electorate doesn’t brand them as representing the whole of the PPP’s policies.
Whilst the People’s Policy Party (PPP) hypothesis is sure to have some knockers and some implementation challenges – the purpose is mostly to inspire new thinking around how we govern.
Yet, whether we like it or not, the wind of change is already happening as I was pleased to discover when I read a mandate from the new British Government. “Members of the public will be given the right to nominate unpopular laws they want scrapped. Nick Clegg has announced the ‘Your Freedom’ initiative intended to begin a shift of power away from the state to the people”, The Daily Telegraph UK.
{ 0 comments }



