2018-12-14
Australia is often touted as having one of the most robust models of democracy in the world. But how does it compare to that of other progressive countries?
By Gösta Lyngå
Between 1988 to 1991, I was a member of the Swedish parliament. After that, I also attended a number of meetings with the European Greens.
Later on, I moved to settle in Canberra and I became engaged in the ACT Greens, the Australian Greens and the Global Greens.
As a result, I have a clear insight into both the Australian political system and the Swedish system. It is clear that the Australian application of democracy is different from that of most European countries – and whether that is an advantage or not may be up for discussion.
Here are the key differences I have observed:
- Single member electorates. A British tradition that was imported to Australia, single member electorates means that one person represents an electorate. This presumes that the person listens to the citizens and takes their issue to the parliament.
In practice, an elected member belongs to the one party with most votes and it is against the practice that the member listens to the views of other voters.
In democratic countries the tradition of multi-member electorates allows different views to play a role. My experience from the Swedish Parliament was that successful agreements between members from different parties led to sensible solutions.
Most democratic countries have several parties, some have minority governments and others have coalitions. Decisions are often made after negotiations between members of different parties. In Australia this is called a “hung” parliament. Such an awful misrepresentation!
- Placing in the chamber. The Australian tradition, again inherited from Britain, is that parties sit together – a system that does not encourage collaborations between members of different parties. In the Swedish parliament I was sitting beside a sensible woman who represented the Liberals, a party that had different views on several issues to those of my Greens party. We had a number of respectful discussions leading to deepened understanding of other views.
- Questions to ministers. In Sweden, members put questions to ministers and get answers. This is common in many European countries. The Australian tradition is to put a loaded question to criticise the government and then for the minister to barely answer the question but to take the opportunity to shout about how bad the opposite side is. This leads to an inefficient and disgraceful debate.
- Opinion polls neglect some parties. Very common is that only the “two party preferred” opinions are presented, the consequence being that support for alternative views is not reported on.
- Preference flows. At senate elections and also at state elections with the Hare-Clark system – used in Tasmania and the ACT – preferences are transferred if a candidate is excluded or gets more than the quota. This is in theory a good system since it allows voters to express views more fully.
However, sometimes parties nominate other parties for preferences in order to get their preferences in exchange, i.e. strategic preference deals. The more honest approach is to consider the policies of other parties and select according to those.
- Eligibilities of public servants. In Australia, a person with an office under the crown cannot also serve in parliament but has to permanently resign from the public office if elected. In Sweden, the situation is different as it is desired to elect people from all walks of life.
I was on long-term leave from my position as lecturer at Lund University when I was a member of parliament, and would have been able to resume my position at the university if I had wished to do so after my parliamentary term.
- Donations. It is surprising how many large donations are given by corporations to politicians and political parties in Australia. There can be no doubt that the donors expect decisions to be made in their favour. Whenever the decision-makers base their views on the money received, we must call this a bribe. This kind of behaviour is unknown in Sweden, where there are strict rules about the value of gifts that politicians can receive.
- Compulsory voting. In Australia voting is compulsory. Worldwide, 22 countries have compulsory voting, including three European countries (Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg). The argument in favour of compulsory voting is that the views of every citizen are represented in the resulting elections. Voluntary voting in Sweden usually means that over 80 percent vote and it is generally assumed that the non-voters do not have views on government nor interest in taking part. It is therefore a challenge for the political parties to wake the interest among those citizens.
- Voting age. In Australia, Sweden and most other countries, the voting age is 18. However, in some countries it has now been lowered to 16 with the motivation that young people are increasingly more informed about policies and more interested in elections.
Gösta Lyngå is a former member of Swedish parliament and a founding member of the ACT Greens. He has been a member of the Australian Greens for more than 25 years.