In Australia we’ve got the dominant view that hung parliaments and large cross benches are ‘unworkable’ and ‘feral’. Why? In Europe hung parliaments are normal, and there are often many parties represented in the parliament.
Would we benefit from more diverse parties and viewpoints in parliament?
Democracies have little value unless the populace participates. I (probably like many others) am put off from active participation and my cynicism is fed, by the cumbersome nature of government and the lack of cooperation between parties. Does a ‘party system’ have to translate into the circus that we witness in our parliaments?
Perhaps like Impressionism before it, political correctness will be a useful, neutral shorthand for a way of seeing the world. Until then, it’s a insult thrown across Xmas dinner tables and in the opinion pages of The Australian. ‘You’re just being politically correct’ pointedly suggests that a view is being parroted, that is it not honestly held. Why are attempts, no doubt in my case faltering and inexpertly argued, assumed to be disingenuous? What does this do except reinforce an underlying idea that bigotry, or the ugly aspects of the Id, are not only raw but somehow better for being honest?
Some countries use a year of compulsory military service as a rite of passage for young adults. Looking at our 18 year olds today, some might say we need to bring in this kind of enforced ‘gap year’ for the good of the individual and of our whole society. And of course, it would strengthen the country militarily to have a national service corps. But at what cost? Would this be worth it?
Public discourse on politically contested matters—like climate change, refugees, distribution of resources, etc.—seems to be at a low ebb. We need to find ways to address these issues constructively if we are to have any hope of meeting the challenges of the coming years. But how can we be a part of the solution and not just a part of the problem?