LOGIN
Politics

Australia's democracy: A one-party consensus

By | | comments
(Image via @FrBower)

Before there can be reform, it's time to wake up and accept responsibility for Australia's political system — a one-party “consensus” controlled by the Corporate-Industrial Complex, says Alfred L.C. van Amelsvoort.

LET US suppose that federal, state and local elections really mattered here in Australia.

That I, if voting for a particular candidate, could say confidently, “He (or she) will represent my position, will act on behalf of our ecosystem, will promote justice."

That we could enter a choice selecting integrity — someone authentic who would take the oath and initiate the entirety of nouns pushed against verbs that form campaign promises.

However, to make that dream a reality requires attracting people with integrity and authentic visions, prepared to swear allegiance to the people of Australia and the abolition of the two-party system or any party system, for that matter.

I believe, if you put the majority of Liberal, Labor and Nationals together, ignore the rhetoric and look at the policies, we have a one-party “consensus” with little choice for the voter. The dominant political parties are owned, operated and controlled by the Corporate-Industrial Complex and thus the political leaders.

The following transcript of an exchange on the ABC’s Q&A program in 2012 between Labor Senator for NSW Doug Cameron and host Tony Jones, is memorable, as it highlights the double-speak standard necessary to survive the current party system of government:

DOUG CAMERON: Yeah, I think the whole debate on refugees has done a great disservice to Australia. I am a strong supporter of refugees having access to this country and if their lives are in danger or if they are facing real threats, I...

TONY JONES: Did you vote for the new policy?

DOUG CAMERON: I voted for the new policy but I opposed it...

TONY JONES: Why didn't you cross the floor?

DOUG CAMERON: I didn't cross the floor because I had signed a pledge in the Labor Party that I would support the Caucus decisions. I had a point of view about it in the Caucus. I took the view that we should delay until we spoke to the UNHCR, until we spoke to other refugee groups. I took the view that we shouldn't go down this path but as on many occasions, as Graham [Graham Richardson, Labor powerbroker turned commentator] will tell you, I was on the losing side of that argument.

I’m left pondering how it is possible that Australians have no interest in anything other than soap opera politics. We have free choice. Plainly seeing what’s right in front of our noses, no matter how well sold or disguised, remains our responsibility. That mature, well-educated Australian people would relinquish this right and capability is disturbing.

People have been conditioned to obey the rule: "Do not discuss politics". Well, someone has to. And who are they that discuss politics despite the rule?

Mainstream news broadcasters that function to propagate fabricated fear have usurped that role. They assure us that our Government is taking all necessary steps to protect us from queue jumping, diseased and criminal asylum seekers and nasty Muslim ISIS terrorists. They tell us what we want to hear.

The bottom line is our compliance and acceptance in return for security and protection from the current bogeyman. Political commentary is made by embedded hirelings with irrelevant soap opera scripts — as is parliamentary question time. Of course, people are convinced that they are reliably informed, whereas the opposite is true. You are not well and reliably informed and you never were!

Let’s suppose that all constituents were informed enough to comprehend the material motives for illegal invasions and occupations. It is necessary to understand that in order to garner support for war, there’s a requirement to create an enemy, manipulate fear and hatred and promote patriotism and nationalism.

 

Let’s assume that each constituent knows that policies perpetrated in our names have delivered massive disasters in foreign lands; has an understanding of Australia’s history of the blood and tears of Indigenous Australians and babies pulled from the arms of their mothers and fathers and is aware of the reality of the heinous crimes against our children by powerful and largely protected paedophiles.

Then, let us wake up and start discussing politics but only if only we perceive every person, regardless of race, status, gender or any label assigned to separate or alienate, as equal human beings.

You can read more by Dr Alfred L.C. van Amelsvoort here.

Features #1
Card image
Support card subtitle

Some quick example text to build on the card title .

link Second link

Monthly Donation

$

Single Donation

$

Be progressive. Subscribe to IA for just $5.

 
Recent articles by Dr Alfred L.C. van Amelsvoort
Australia's democracy: A one-party consensus

Before there can be reform, it's time to wake up and accept responsibility for ...  
A transformative vision for Australia

Could Canada's bold new Leap Manifesto, founded on the principles of caring for the ...  
Canada's Leap Manifesto: Will this change everything?

An audacious and radical plan to overhaul the Canadian economy authored by some of ...  
Join the conversation
comments powered by Disqus

Support Independent Australia

IA is dedicated to providing fearless, independent journalism, free for all, with no barriers. But we need your help. To keep us speaking truth to power, please consider donating to IA today - even a dollar will make a huge difference - or subscribe and receive all the benefits of membership. Keep ‘em honest. Support IA.

Subscribe Donate