Hear lies democracy

Democracies come in many varieties, which is good because we can see how some perform better or worse than others in different circumstances. Some are more structurally robust and some more fragile. I've discussed before my view that the Australian democratic structures are quite fragile. (Unrepresentative swill Part One and Unrepresentative swill Part Two).

But no matter how they are structured, the rule of law underpins all democracies, plays an essential part in their continued viability. The rule of law can be seen as the bricks from which democracies are built. They form the bulwark. But in the governance of democracies, the rule of law is not sufficient in and of itself. The thing that holds the bricks together is trust. It is the old notion of having the confidence of the people. Trust is the mortar that holds the bricks together.

That is why, in some governments, a vote of non-confidence in the government requires a new election. That is why, in the ideal Westminster system, Ministers are held to a high level of responsibility, higher than we would expect of civil servants, departmental staff and other parliamentarians.

No matter how popular a government was at the last election, it can lose the confidence of the people and the government becomes ungovernable. Distrust of our leaders is as poisonous to democracy as hemlock was to Socrates.

And the easiest way to lose the confidence is to lie to the people. Especially if you get caught. The letters to the editor in the Herald today were full of citizens saying they no longer trust the leadership, they no longer have confidence in the government. The editorial reads, "The Government's counter-terrorism legislation asks Australians to take a lot on trust.... The community is entitled to be sceptical."

Peter Hartcher, in his Herald column today, in reference to the new terror laws, said:

"It is a reasonable proposition that an extraordinary danger should require an extraordinary response. The Government has produced the extraordinary response; it has not told us in any serious way of the extraordinary danger. It's not that the Government has said nothing at all. It's just that its explanations have been thoroughly inadequate....

"We are left with these facts. First, there has been no serious new threat assessment issued. Second, there has been no new discovery of the possibility of home-grown terrorism because Roche was jailed the year before the London bombings. Third, ASIO has not argued in public for any more powers. Fourth, the national threat alert level has remained unchanged. And fifth, to deal with the threat Howard announced on Wednesday, he has asked for the urgent passage of a single, technical amendment.

"So to justify the rest of the bill we are left with nothing more than the Prime Minister's statement that the London bombings "had quite an effect on me". This is the equivalent of saying: "Trust me." Unfortunately, we cannot trust the Government on intelligence matters - see the file marked Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. We cannot trust Ruddock's record on the protection of citizens' rights - it was his Immigration Department that deported Australians. And we cannot trust ASIO to ensure that it will not act against the innocent - witness the Bilal Daye case, in which agents raided the wrong house."

In a similar vein, Richard Ackland, in his Herald column , said:

"After the kiddies went overboard and the weapons of mass distraction were brandished in our face can we ever be forgiven for being a mite disdainful of claims of the further imminent horror?...

"In the United States, similar strategies have been paraded. In June, President George Bush and his Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, stood together to claim "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects". They added that more than half have been convicted, that is, more than 200. The Washington Post followed up the claim and discovered that of those 200-plus convictions, only 39 related to terrorism or national security. Many others fell in the category of immigration violations.

"Frank Rich in The New York Times pointed out five days ago that the hyping (marketing) of threats after September 11, 2001, "reflects the same DNA as the hyping of Saddam's uranium - in both cases national security scares are trumpeted to advance the White House's political goals". Rich pointed to an MSNBC media investigation of 13 "coincidences" where political news adverse to the Administration had been followed by the announcement of a/the "terror event".

"We're in familiar territory. The widely unpopular industrial relations laws and a specific terrorist threat have been itching for a while to leap into bed together.

"By now the pattern of behaviour is clear. It has grown from the initial deceit used to market the invasion of Iraq. Linked to the selling of the war is the discrediting of any of its critics who might be taken seriously.

"Remember David Kelly, the British defence scientist who leaked his concerns about the intelligence report used to justify the invasion? Kelly talked to several reporters about how the intelligence report had been transformed into a more alarmist document at the insistence of Tony Blair's marketing man, Alastair Campbell.

"Subsequently Blair's office decided in a quite calculated way to deflect the story by fingering a defence "official" who had spoken to the national broadcaster. Following his exposure Kelly committed suicide."

It is perhaps interesting to note that, in contrast to Australia, Ministerial Responsibility is seemingly taken seriously. The Education Minister, David Blunkett, first stepped down from his Cabinet position, then from his Ministerial role for indescretions that the Howard ministers would dismiss with a wave of the hand. (See:
http://smh.com.au/news/world/essence-of-life-is-key-to-a-political-death/2005/11/03/1130823343442.html)