|
There wouldn't be too many people who would want me to represent them at a constitutional convention. But let's imagine for a moment that there were, and I was allowed to give a speech. This would probably be it: Phil Bachmann's speech to the Australian Constitutional Convention There seem to be two sorts of people at this convention. The first group seem to want to ensure that the constitution changes, as close as possible, to bugger all. The second, much smaller group, would like to see it changed more than that. One of the things we have heard from some prominent people at the convention is that they thought it was a bad idea for ordinary people to be involved in electing the president. They have said that in one form or another, the parliament should do it. The interesting thing is that ordinary Australians generally support the idea of a popularly elected president. One would imagine that if a group of convention delegates were prepared to go against the wishes of the people who elected them they would have a lot of solid reasons to support their position. If such brilliant offerings have be put forward, I am yet to discern them. So while we wait for those reasons to become evident, let us ponder their other, less brilliant, offerings: Reason 1: "We don’t want the election of a head-of-state to turn into a beauty contest" I agree that we don’t want to elect people on the basis of how good they look. But a quick reality check would show us that this is precisely what is already happening in politics: One of the most prominent politicians in this country is a pretty blonde woman in her twenties! In addition to the media attention her looks attract, she has been able to use her relative youth to convince this country’s most inexperienced voters that she alone has their interests at heart. By contrast, the election of a president would include the participation of more proficient voters and presumably Miss Sweetie Pie would have no hope of getting that particular job. So, how can we minimise the effect of personal appearance in election campaigns? Someone suggested to me that we limit the nominations to those 95% of the Australian population whom people don’t particularly want to see naked. If you think that idea's a funny one, consider the ARM's solution which is simply to remove ordinary people from the voting process. If we're serious about reducing the effect looks and other such superficial considerations have on the election of politicians, let's design solutions that deal with it. For example:
Reason 2: "The head of state should be impartial rather than a political figure." There are a number of points here:
Reason 3: "A popular election could only be won by someone with a lot of money behind him." A glib answer to the question of money is simply to design voting systems which do not give undue prominence to people just because they have money. But, admittedly, the answer probably isn't so easy. Even if we could remove money from the equation, we might inadvertently give prominence to qualities even less deserving. If a wealthy businessman uses his money to get media attention is that better or worse than a pretty youngster using her looks to do the same? The thoughts I have articulated here are so obvious that they cannot be original. Many of the delegates assembled at this convention must have struck the same notions. So why haven't we heard from them? Thinking about all that I have said, my feeling is, "What else should I have expected?" Are serving members of parliament really going to advocate changes to a system that put them there? Are people who want to be friends of encumbent politicians going to risk saying something which may annoy their intended patrons? Are delegates new to the political arena going to have the courage and the insight to say something radical, something which might be mocked by those perceived to be more worldly wise? Perhaps my speech will be a catalyst for some new thinking but probably it won't be. Even though it may appear different in substance to many of the other speeches here today, it will probably be no different in outcome. The one redeeming feature of this and the other speeches is the immense pleasure it has given the orator in hearing himself talk. Copyright © 1998, Philipp Bachmann The office convention home page may be found at http://www.dpmc.gov.au/convention/ | |