The literal meaning of word ‘democracy’ is people power, which essentially means ‘rule by the people’. It is derived from the Greek word dēmokratia, which was coined from the words dēmos (“common people of the city state”) and kratos (“rule” or “power”) in the middle of the 5th century BCE. Since the ‘common people of the city state’ were in effect its citizens, it would be more accurate to describe democracy as rule by the citizens.
Democracy can take many forms. For the purposes of this piece, I’ll touch on three types: direct, representative and constitutional democracies. A direct democracy is where the citizens participate (listen, debate and vote) on all political decisions. A representative democracy is where the citizens elect people to represent their interests on political matters. A constitutional democracy is one where the decisions of the majority are restricted by a constitution that, for example, protects minority rights.
Many countries today have some or other combination of the three. The citizens elect political representatives, members of parliament, and their power is limited by a constitution, and referendums are held from time to time. These countries also have an executive arm of government to enforce laws and a judicial system to interpret laws and ensure that executive power is not abused.
This combination is, in theory, ideal. The citizens elect people they trust to represent their political interests on the more mundane political matters, leaving them to go about their daily affairs without being troubled with a plethora of political decisions to consider and make, but expecting that on the bigger issues, they have a direct say, vote. It also protects minority groups, leaving them confident (or relatively confident) that the majority won’t enact laws subjugating them. It is however not what we have in Australia. We have a constitution, but it does not protect minority rights. Those rights are protected to some extent through anti-discrimination legislation. Our constitution essentially defines the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States. A referendum is needed to change the constitution. This requires a “double majority’, being a majority of all Australians and a majority in 4 of the 6 States. The right to call a referendum lies exclusively with our Federal Parliament. Citizens do not have the right to hold a referendum.
In summary: We have a representative democracy, with no capacity for direct representation other than on changes to our constitution.
However, when we talk about having a democratic system of government, we refer to a system of government that includes three arms of government (legislature, executive and judiciary) providing checks and balances on each other, the rule of law and a free press. That’s essentially what we have, structurally, but do we have a functional democratic system of government? That’s the crucial question!
Do our State and Federal politicians, the people we elect to represent our interests, perform that duty or do they, once elected, do their own thing, do whatever they want?
Unfortunately, it is the latter, which three reasonably recent examples show: One is the 2023 referendum on a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament for First Nations People. It was comprehensively rejected in all States, but the Victorian and South Australian State Governments ignored that result to implement something similar in their States. This they did knowing full well it was contrary to the wishes of most voters in their States. Another example is the leadership of the Labour Party expressly and repeatedly committing, while campaigning for election, not to change certain tax legislation (CGT and negative gearing), yet after winning the election announced their intention to do the exact opposite. The third example is the Morrison Liberal Government significantly increasing money supply in handling the Covid-19 pandemic, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt. Doing so was contrary to a value on which the Liberal Party campaigned – of sound fiscal management. In each of these three cases the politicians were elected on an express premise, then did the opposite of what they said they would do. That does not show a functional democracy, it shows the opposite. A fourth example is mass immigration. This was never put to the people, politicians did not and do not have a mandate for it, many reports show that most voters are against it, and it is of high importance as it can lead to social change. Again, the wishes of the people was ignored.
These examples also raise the question of – where was our judiciary? It was AWOL, missing in action. We expect our judiciary to check the use of power by our politicians. It failed to do so in these cases. It our judiciary does not have the power to intervene, the power to declare such legislation null and void, we need to change our constitution to allow it. If our judiciary does not have the inclination to intervene, we need to change our judiciary.
Another core tenet of a functional democracy is adherence to the rule of law – which includes all citizens being equal under the law, and the judiciary being strictly separate from the legislative and executive arms of government. Various laws discriminate, justifiably or otherwise, so while we like to think we are equal under the law, we are not. And, given that judges are appointed by government, paid by government and promoted by government, are they ‘strictly separate? Not in theory, nor practically. At least one appointment was reported as having been a payback to a director of public prosecutions who decided not to prosecute a premier. And given that judges are appointed, paid and promoted by government, can they really be impartial when presiding over matters where government is a party. So, it is at least questionable whether the ‘rule of law’ applies here.
We as a nation expect our judiciary to ensure we have a functional democracy, not just a façade of one. Our judicatory should protect the rule of law, ensure that bureaucrats do not misuse or abuse their powers of authority and ensure that our social contract with politicians is protected – that our politicians do not enact legislation that is contrary to the wishes of the people or contrary to explicit and repeated commitments made with campaigning for office. Our judiciary is not doing so.
Let’s consider a few other examples:
Is our democratic system of government still functional where the electorate re-elects politicians who ignore the will of the people they supposedly represent; who fail in their fundamental duty of ensuring our safety; who commit to transparent government, then doggedly refuse to release information; whose fiscal management is appalling; who have little interest in reining in corruption because the parties benefiting from it are big donors; where the party in government imports voters (people likely to vote for them); or where people of a certain group vote as a block? Does that show a functional democracy? Not to me it doesn’t! How about where most of the voters are apathetic, disinterested in politics, or have a very poor understanding or appreciation of the values and policies of the contending political parties or just vote for a side because that’s what they have always done? Does that show a functional democracy? Again, not to me it doesn’t!
And that is not the least of our problems: Our democratic system of government is designed to provide checks and balances – to ensure that each arm of government is held to account by another. Do they? They do not! I can show that even low-ranking public officials, a municipal building surveyor, can operate with impunity and behave unconscionably. He can give a person the go-ahead to do something, to do a building alteration, then prosecute him for going ahead. He can even be motivated by malicious intent, can make wilfully dishonest claims and statements, ignore his legal and moral obligations, refuse a request for information, and so on. You may well wonder how this can be – it is because our judiciary allows it! I can also show that our courts not only allow such behaviour; in their endeavours to allow it, judges will stoop to whatever depths are necessary, including being blatantly dishonesty and biased. Is that reflective of a functional democratic system of government. Clearly, not.
Another core tenet of a functional democratic system of government is having a free press that keeps the public informed of government misconduct and holds politicians, bureaucrats and judges accountable. Unfortunately, we do not have such a press. Our press has been captured by government, so much so that it spews government propaganda and silences dissenting voices. The business model of mainstream media has been severely disrupted by digital advertising, the rise in popularity of social media, podcasters and influencers, and by the information age and consequential decline in paying readers. This has resulted in mainstream media lobbying government for protection against competition and relying more heavily on advertising and other government money.
Finally, fundamental to a functional democracy is the right of free speech, the right to criticise government and that includes the right to petition and protest and join political parties. Those wanting a democratic system of government encourage the people to do so. This raises the question whether Australians feel comfortable doing so. To my surprise in establishing Classic Liberals, I came across individuals who are concerned that those in government may find out that they have joined an opposing political party and may target them for doing so. Business owners expressed concerned that their business may lose government tenders because of their political affiliation, and middle-management employees expressed concern their career prospects may be jeopardized because their doing so may adversely affect the employer’s prospects of winning government contracts, or not getting the favours or protection sought from government. That is certainly not reflective of a functional democracy.
In conclusion, we do not have a functional democratic system of government. That must be changed. A tweak here and there will not fix it. It needs comprehensive change. The only party that will see to it, that will make the necessary changes, is Classic Liberals – but it can’t do it alone, it needs considerable support. Without that support Australia’s future is a perilous one.
The literal meaning of word ‘democracy’ is people power, which essentially means ‘rule by the people’. It is derived from the Greek word dēmokratia, which was coined from the words dēmos (“common people of the city state”) and kratos (“rule” or “power”) in the middle of the 5th century BCE. Since the ‘common people of the city state’ were in effect its citizens, it would be more accurate to describe democracy as rule by the citizens.
Democracy can take many forms. For the purposes of this piece, I’ll touch on three types: direct, representative and constitutional democracies. A direct democracy is where the citizens participate (listen, debate and vote) on all political decisions. A representative democracy is where the citizens elect people to represent their interests on political matters. A constitutional democracy is one where the decisions of the majority are restricted by a constitution that, for example, protects minority rights.
Many countries today have some or other combination of the three. The citizens elect political representatives, members of parliament, and their power is limited by a constitution, and referendums are held from time to time. These countries also have an executive arm of government to enforce laws and a judicial system to interpret laws and ensure that executive power is not abused.
This combination is, in theory, ideal. The citizens elect people they trust to represent their political interests on the more mundane political matters, leaving them to go about their daily affairs without being troubled with a plethora of political decisions to consider and make, but expecting that on the bigger issues, they have a direct say, vote. It also protects minority groups, leaving them confident (or relatively confident) that the majority won’t enact laws subjugating them. It is however not what we have in Australia. We have a constitution, but it does not protect minority rights. Those rights are protected to some extent through anti-discrimination legislation. Our constitution essentially defines the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States. A referendum is needed to change the constitution. This requires a “double majority’, being a majority of all Australians and a majority in 4 of the 6 States. The right to call a referendum lies exclusively with our Federal Parliament. Citizens do not have the right to hold a referendum.
In summary: We have a representative democracy, with no capacity for direct representation other than on changes to our constitution.
However, when we talk about having a democratic system of government, we refer to a system of government that includes three arms of government (legislature, executive and judiciary) providing checks and balances on each other, the rule of law and a free press. That’s essentially what we have, structurally, but do we have a functional democratic system of government? That’s the crucial question!
Do our State and Federal politicians, the people we elect to represent our interests, perform that duty or do they, once elected, do their own thing, do whatever they want?
Unfortunately, it is the latter, which three reasonably recent examples show: One is the 2023 referendum on a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament for First Nations People. It was comprehensively rejected in all States, but the Victorian and South Australian State Governments ignored that result to implement something similar in their States. This they did knowing full well it was contrary to the wishes of most voters in their States. Another example is the leadership of the Labour Party expressly and repeatedly committing, while campaigning for election, not to change certain tax legislation (CGT and negative gearing), yet after winning the election announced their intention to do the exact opposite. The third example is the Morrison Liberal Government significantly increasing money supply in handling the Covid-19 pandemic, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt. Doing so was contrary to a value on which the Liberal Party campaigned – of sound fiscal management. In each of these three cases the politicians were elected on an express premise, then did the opposite of what they said they would do. That does not show a functional democracy, it shows the opposite. A fourth example is mass immigration. This was never put to the people, politicians did not and do not have a mandate for it, many reports show that most voters are against it, and it is of high importance as it can lead to social change. Again, the wishes of the people was ignored.
These examples also raise the question of – where was our judiciary? It was AWOL, missing in action. We expect our judiciary to check the use of power by our politicians. It failed to do so in these cases. It our judiciary does not have the power to intervene, the power to declare such legislation null and void, we need to change our constitution to allow it. If our judiciary does not have the inclination to intervene, we need to change our judiciary.
Another core tenet of a functional democracy is adherence to the rule of law – which includes all citizens being equal under the law, and the judiciary being strictly separate from the legislative and executive arms of government. Various laws discriminate, justifiably or otherwise, so while we like to think we are equal under the law, we are not. And, given that judges are appointed by government, paid by government and promoted by government, are they ‘strictly separate? Not in theory, nor practically. At least one appointment was reported as having been a payback to a director of public prosecutions who decided not to prosecute a premier. And given that judges are appointed, paid and promoted by government, can they really be impartial when presiding over matters where government is a party. So, it is at least questionable whether the ‘rule of law’ applies here.
We as a nation expect our judiciary to ensure we have a functional democracy, not just a façade of one. Our judicatory should protect the rule of law, ensure that bureaucrats do not misuse or abuse their powers of authority and ensure that our social contract with politicians is protected – that our politicians do not enact legislation that is contrary to the wishes of the people or contrary to explicit and repeated commitments made with campaigning for office. Our judiciary is not doing so.
Let’s consider a few other examples:
Is our democratic system of government still functional where the electorate re-elects politicians who ignore the will of the people they supposedly represent; who fail in their fundamental duty of ensuring our safety; who commit to transparent government, then doggedly refuse to release information; whose fiscal management is appalling; who have little interest in reining in corruption because the parties benefiting from it are big donors; where the party in government imports voters (people likely to vote for them); or where people of a certain group vote as a block? Does that show a functional democracy? Not to me it doesn’t! How about where most of the voters are apathetic, disinterested in politics, or have a very poor understanding or appreciation of the values and policies of the contending political parties or just vote for a side because that’s what they have always done? Does that show a functional democracy? Again, not to me it doesn’t!
And that is not the least of our problems: Our democratic system of government is designed to provide checks and balances – to ensure that each arm of government is held to account by another. Do they? They do not! I can show that even low-ranking public officials, a municipal building surveyor, can operate with impunity and behave unconscionably. He can give a person the go-ahead to do something, to do a building alteration, then prosecute him for going ahead. He can even be motivated by malicious intent, can make wilfully dishonest claims and statements, ignore his legal and moral obligations, refuse a request for information, and so on. You may well wonder how this can be – it is because our judiciary allows it! I can also show that our courts not only allow such behaviour; in their endeavours to allow it, judges will stoop to whatever depths are necessary, including being blatantly dishonesty and biased. Is that reflective of a functional democratic system of government. Clearly, not.
Another core tenet of a functional democratic system of government is having a free press that keeps the public informed of government misconduct and holds politicians, bureaucrats and judges accountable. Unfortunately, we do not have such a press. Our press has been captured by government, so much so that it spews government propaganda and silences dissenting voices. The business model of mainstream media has been severely disrupted by digital advertising, the rise in popularity of social media, podcasters and influencers, and by the information age and consequential decline in paying readers. This has resulted in mainstream media lobbying government for protection against competition and relying more heavily on advertising and other government money.
Finally, fundamental to a functional democracy is the right of free speech, the right to criticise government and that includes the right to petition and protest and join political parties. Those wanting a democratic system of government encourage the people to do so. This raises the question whether Australians feel comfortable doing so. To my surprise in establishing Classic Liberals, I came across individuals who are concerned that those in government may find out that they have joined an opposing political party and may target them for doing so. Business owners expressed concerned that their business may lose government tenders because of their political affiliation, and middle-management employees expressed concern their career prospects may be jeopardized because their doing so may adversely affect the employer’s prospects of winning government contracts, or not getting the favours or protection sought from government. That is certainly not reflective of a functional democracy.
In conclusion, we do not have a functional democratic system of government. That must be changed. A tweak here and there will not fix it. It needs comprehensive change. The only party that will see to it, that will make the necessary changes, is Classic Liberals – but it can’t do it alone, it needs considerable support. Without that support Australia’s future is a perilous one.
Written by: Mark M.J. Morris (May 2026)