Joe Stalin would have loved One Nation, a movement in which the president has exclusive access to membership lists but the putative party leader has none, a devoted following who seemingly have no say in the things that matter, where policy and public figures appear and disappear overnight, where branches operate as cells and are not permitted to communicate with each other, where members have no access to the constitution, and where the selection of candidates is by fiat rather than the vote. Comrades this is joy!
The allegations that One Nation is undemocratic in the way that it goes about its business may not diminish its popularity, but it should. They may only prove to the devotees that parties and politics are like that and that sometimes you have to play rough to win. One Nation is a registered political party, but in most other regards it is not a party at all, it is a protest movement. But as it grows and wins seats it will come more and more to resemble a party. In order to manage the struggle for power that is the essence of party politics, its members will begin to demand rules for managing its affairs. It will no longer be the personal property of two or three operatives.
As far as the electorate is concerned parties are run by the leader and what they say goes. If that was so then John Howard would have simply told the WA branch that they had to preselect Alan Rocher for Curtin, and Kim Beazley that the NT branch had to choose Pat Dodson for the Senate. Both leaders failed because it is not that simple. Certainly there are plenty of ways to get around a set of rules. Branches can be "stacked", meeting times changed, votes shifted to other forums, voters knocked off the list of those eligible, proxies gathered up, and even blank ballot papers delivered up to the backroom boys.
The major parties actually work very hard to cut out these rorts, they know that their credibility rests with an internal process that has integrity. This integrity has been hard won, and each have systems that subscribe to important principles, most of which are to be found in their constitutions and available to their membership.
A voter should not be subject to any interference during the conduct of the ballot. A proper scrutiny of the ballot should be ensured, and proper notice should given for all of the important elements of the poll such as the time to nominate and to conduct the poll. A ballot should be conducted in private, and that this is assisted by the provision of separate voting compartments. A secure ballot box should be available for placing ballot papers. The concept of equal weight of votes or one vote-one value should be governed by strict rules against malapportionment. The ability to define the right to vote or stand for election is very important. The integrity of the roll of voters is fundamental to a fair election. The right to inspect the roll and for copies to be made available to candidates and on equal terms, as well as the right to object to the inclusion or exclusion of voters. A clear agreement as to who is responsible for keeping the roll is also ess. Dispute procedures are an important element of fair elections. A party must be able to hear and decide matters that concern an alleged breach of party rules in circumstances that allow for a fair hearing.
There is little regulation of the internal processes of parties and almost no judicial scrutiny so the parties have an obligation, especially as they receive public funds, to ensure that their processes are fair. By and large, with some dishonourable exceptions the major parties achieve this. Keeping the process democratic does not mean there are no deals, but in a system with integrity you can only do a deal when you have the numbers. Striking deals based on the accumulation of support at clean elections is the stuff of democratic politics. Having power without elections is undemocratic. One Nation voters had best be careful about what they are buying.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment