Our system of government has reached the stage where it has become common place for politicians to promise the world while campaigning for office, making commitments and giving undertakings with the hope of winning voter support, then once elected either do the exact opposite or make minimal (if any) endeavours to fulfil their pre-election commitments and undertakings. Some members of the public, with some justification, refer to certain politicians as ‘pathological liars’.
That behaviour is not reflective of a functioning democratic system of government, rather it is reflective of a democracy in decay, which in turn leads to more distrust in the three arms of government – politicians, bureaucrats and judges – as they are supposed to check and balance each other.
And as the public loses more trust in our system of government, the more likely it is that the natural forces of anarchy will awaken. A strong leader, a dictator, will be needed to bring order. While that person may be an honest leader who has the nation’s best interests at heart, he (or she) may be replaced by someone who isn’t. That is the natural circle of governance. We as a nation need to recognise this and ensure that our democratic system of government does not decay, rather changes trajectory to functioning better and better.
A crucial step for us to take to ensure a better functioning democratic system of government is to appreciate its inherent flaw and guard against it. That flaw being the tendency of the population to elect demogogues, people who promise the world to get elected, claiming that once elected to office they will give the electorate this and that gift. Democracy doesn’t reward candidates for having the best policies, it rewards them for being popular, and to be popular they need to tell the electorate what it wants to hear, and what they want to hear is what government will give or do for them.
Once we recognise the propensity of politicians, particularly career politicians and those hungry for power, to ‘buy’ their way into office, how do we guard against it? How do we see through their pretence to their real intention, and how do we disincentivise that deceitful conduct?
One way to see through their statements to their real intention is to be sceptical and that includes considering whether the commitment or undertaking aligns with their (and their party’s) DNA. For example, if a socialist party commits to reducing taxes, be sceptical. Similarly, if a capitalist party commits to increasing social welfare payments, be sceptical.
Since it is human nature for people to do something where the upside for them (the likely benefits for them) significantly exceeds the downside (the likely financial and reputational costs to them), we need to ensure that their cost versus benefit assessment disincentivises dishonesty. To that end we can reduce the potential upside for them, increase the potential downside, and increase the likelihood that they will be caught.
We can limit their upside, the income they can earn during their time in office, by having the right to remove them from office early where they have reneged on a material commitment. This could be done by giving the Governor-General of Australia the power to call an election and the obligation to do so on petition by a large enough cohort of eligible voters. Why, because ignoring the wishes of the majority is a fundamental breach of our social contract with our members of parliament.
We could prevent them from enacting (or repealing) legislation contrary to the basis on which they were elected, by giving our judiciary the power to declare such legislation to be null and void, as unenforceable.
If we don’t stop this dishonesty by politicians, we might as well formerly renounce our democracy and live under an authoritarian regime. That won’t end well, so let’s take whatever steps are needed to prevent, or at least minimise, political dishonesty.
We need to ensure that in these circumstances where politicians act contrary to the basis on which they were elected or otherwise enact legislation that is contrary to the wishes of most voters:
- Our Governor-General has the power to suspend parliament and call an election,
- Our Governor-General is obliged to suspend parliament and call an election on petition by (100,000) eligible voters;
- Our Federal Court has the power to declare such legislation to be null and void, unenforceable.
Similar powers should also apply to the States.
Written by: Mark M.J. Morris (May 2026)