politically themed whinge for the day (a.k.a. current procrastination)

The Westminster System. The basis of which (to my feeble understanding) was the re-negotiation of power between the King of England and feudal lords as a precursor to Parliament.

The idea was that rather than the sovreign just galloping about doing what he wanted, he'd have to get some advice from the Parliament as well. Parliament in this way being an advisory body rather than a decision making/executive one.

Cut to the modern context. Parliament still seems to be about a place where things get argued rather than get done. Australia doesn't have a monarch in any real sense (not being republican, it's just that over the last couple of hundred years, the wishes of the sovreign have not had a great deal of impact on how this country has run. perhpas this is less the case with economic issues than with social ones, but i can generalise without doing research because this is just a rant), there is a gap in that decision making/executive process.

now for some strange reason, people have it in their heads that this power is derived from the people, probably because of the literal meaning of "representative democracy". it's general practice that at some point in time, we are all disabused of notions regarding the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy (I still fervently believe in the domestic pixies, even if they obviously don't believe in me). i think that more people should realise that their once-every-few-years trip to a small booth to number boxes is not actually the same as having a voice. i'm not saying that it's not important (particularly if you get to vote in a marginal seat), but it's not so much an exercise of power as a very large focus group to determine the success of marketing.

democracy is the opiate of the masses? perhaps.

are there any other options? well, i presume that any changes to the system of governance are bad for economic development, so that does help enforce a status quo. nobody will want changes that are detrimental to their superannuation, the interest rate on their mortgage, the cost of petrol, interfere with the services and infrastructure that we enjoy under the present system. and i wouldn't want to ask them to.

and perhaps the options that i think about would lead to cries of "communist!" and my getting burned at the stake. really, i'm at the other end of the spectrum. if communism is the collective/state ownership of all property etc, it is still its administration by a small number who are strongly shielded against any pressure to reform. perhaps this works on a small scale, but from personal experience of trying to run anything co-operatively, i'd be lucky not to get my ice-pick of vengeance out in the first week.

what i want is (shit i hate this word) a kind of accountability. what would be even better is if the accountability were unnecessary -- a kind of utopian consensus governance -- but that may be getting back into icepick country.

i've heard it argued that one of the most important lessons of the 20th century is that sweeping (i.e. revolutionary) changes to government are Not Good Things. i can accept that, possibly because i haven't looked into it too closely. but i don't think that it means that change fullstop is a bad idea. or that considering change is automatically going to result in rioting, gulags, very big beards, drastically reduced levels of hygiene and other madness.

am quite happy to start own country as a test model for alternative systems of governance. absolutely promise that i won't be invading other countries or booing their national anthems during sporting events.