G’Day. The themes we explored in July – Howard’s anti-democratic agenda, spin, lies, the suppression of free speech, unholy alliances – are rolling right into into August. I’ve inducted ABC managing director Russell Balding into Webdiary’s Taking a stand honour roll for his fiery commitment to editorial independence no matter what Alston and co throw at him or how much they try to starve the ABC to death (ABC slashes shows but defies Alston). Get this: “If continued funding difficulty is the price of proper editorial independence, then the ABC must be prepared to pay it,” he said in a memo to staff. It’s digging in time, folks.

This week education minister Brendan Nelson, the bloke who threatened to cross the floor to preserve a free media when Howard wanted Packer to take over Fairfax in 1997 but says nothing at all on Howard’s current desire to see Packer buy Fairfax and Murdoch buy a TV network, has been exposed gutting a report on the state of higher education (Ugly details cut from uni policy report). This story was a Sydney Morning Heraldscoop, perhaps one of those stories you won’t hear about if Howard’s cross media plan gets through the Senate next time.

Nelson’s media minder is none other than Ross Hampton, the bloke who did the spin and suppress work for Peter Reith during the children overboard cover-up, refused to give evidence to the Senate inquiry and, of course, kept his Liberal Party job.

While Nelson censors, Howard misleads, again. He’s been exposed misleading Parliament, one of those little things that used to trigger a ministerial resignation (PM misled Parliament on ethanol talks, says Crean).

On cross media, Packer has taken a stake in the top-rating online jobs search site Seek (Farewell Monster, hello Seek.) There’s now three major competitors – Packer, Fairfax and Murdoch. Wouldn’t it be great if Packer took over Fairfax? Down to two players, and that equals duopoly and that equals monopoly profits. The government’s cross media agenda is beyond scary – it would transform this nation’s democracy, politics, business world and sports world into playthings for the big two.

July’s top five referring sites (except for news.google) were whatreallyhappened, bushwatch, thesquiz, bunyipblogspot and sievx.

The ten most read Webdiaries in July were:

1. Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power, July 8

2. Howard’s roads to absolute power, June 30

3. The new global mosaic, July 29

4. It Matters!, July 22

5. Webdiary’s ethics, July 23

6. Howard worries liberals, too July 3

7. Good one John, but why stop at the ABC?, July 25

8. Once bitten, twice bitten?, July 17

9. Anger as an energy, July 22

10. Australian crimes against humanity, July 8

This Webdiary is about democracy and how citizens might help save it, so I thought you’d be interested in re-reading John Howard’s preamble to the constitution which he put to the people at the same time as the republic question. It’s empty words, of course – Howard hates the idea of a citizen’s bill of rights because that would limit his power to trample them.

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good. We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution

* proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;

* never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;

* upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;

* honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;

* recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;

* mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;

* supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;

* and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.

Daniel Moye’s ‘Understanding boundaries’ in Why conservatives fear John Howard has got me thinking. Daniel, who describes himself as a conservative, set out four issues of concern in Howard’s way – an unnecessary reduction in civil rights, misleading conduct on selling the war on Iraq, actively suppressing dissent, and lessening government accountability and transparency.

Harry Heidelberg, a small ‘l’ Liberal, concurs with Daniel’s four points, as do I, a novice Greens voter. I wonder – what say Daniel, Harry, greenie Jack Robertson and ALP member Guido Tresoldi got together to nut out the issues they all agreed were both crucial to democracy and under threat from John Howard. They could come back with their list and the rationale behind it for publication on Webdiary. The parameters of the discussion could perhaps be set by a question Daniel poses in a piece published below: “What is at the heart of democracy that makes it so sustainable, valuable and worth fighting for?”

They could, if they wished, imagine it this way. You all live in a community in Australia. Naturally you disagree on many things. Are there issues of concern to all of you that you could imagine working together on in your community to keep your local, state and federal politicians honest and let your community know what’s going on?

A fantasy: ‘Save our democracy’ groups develop all around Australia to work together on the ground. There’d be local websites, local input and questions to political representatives.

I first discussed the gradual emergence of ‘unholy alliances’ in Faultlines in Howard’s plan for absolute power, a piece republished in part in a new bi-monthly local magazine in the Tweed called The Mindreader. It was set up by local dissidents to expose the developer backed and funded “Balance’ team which controls Council. The Four Corners transcript of the dire state of play in the Tweed is at Ocean views. I’ve seen one issue ofThe Mindreader, in which opposition councillors – Liberal, Labor, National and Green – got together to advertise their common goals, namely a level playing field for residents and transparency in decision making. Imagine independent local community papers run by local citizens all over the place – now wouldn’t that be good for democracy!

Today Harry Heidelberg’s response to Daniel Moye’s ‘Understanding boundaries’, a piece by Daniel on why media diversity and a strong Senate are vital to our democracy, and a response to ‘Understanding boundaries’ by Webdiarist Philip Hewett.

But first, here’s a nice exchange between Harry and Bill Condie, who liked Harry’s Will Howard beat Bush?

Bill: As an old hack who never compliments anyone, can you pass on to Harry Heidelberg my view that his piece was fabulous. Really one of the most intelligent things I’ve read in months. There always has been an uneasy tension in America between people who have read and understood Voltaire and the freaks on the Mayflower. It’s just so very hard to see when Kingaroy seems to win so much more than Surry Hills (an inner city Sydney suburb).

Harry: I am not so sure that Kingaroy wins more than Surry Hills. There’s a Surry Hills revolution taking place in America and George Bush can’t control it no matter how hard he tries. The coasts are going to take back the hard centre! Anyway, I can’t wait to get to Florida, the land of the dangling and dimpled chads, the land where Al Gore was robbed. Without 9-11, there would be an ongoing debate right now about the legitimacy of this president. As it is Bush still may have to face up to that one

***

Harry to Daniel:

Daniel is right. There are certain boundaries, and while as an individual I don’t like to be bound, I quite like it when the powerful are bound. Then there’s the individualism he speaks of. It’s also very Aussie. I shiver when I see people cow-towing to authority.

Those in power need to remember they are duty bound. This lapses after a long period in office and it’s the reason why democracy and the constant urge for change and reinvention is so healthy. People are always insisting they don’t like change – but when they decide it is needed they decide in DROVES.

I’m with Daniel on all his issues:

1. Civil rights. I concur with his slippery slope argument, and don’t have much tolerance for diminution of our rights. Near to zero tolerance actually. The rights are our essence and that’s how we define ourselves. Chuck that out and you’ve lost everything. Simplistic? Not really – check out other places that quickly changed. History proves it can happen when you least expect it.

2. Misleading re Iraq. I am deeply dissatisfied with where we stand on this right now. We need an investigation. The argument is not about whether or not Saddam should be in power. He’s gone and that is good. I need to know what my government stands for. We are at first base on this. The point is what happens next time? This is my own private Vietnam. – I trusted them before but now I’m not sure.

3. Actively seeking to stifle dissent. Of course the ABC is biased. There is nothing new in that. All of the media are biased in one way or another. I don’t trust Alan Jones and I don’t trust the ABC. Sadly – or happily, if you think about it – there remains diversity, and I am happy for the ABC to present an alternative. I don’t get hassled by it at all. Dream on, Government, if you ever, ever believe the ABC will be friendly. This debate is tired and old. Let them do what they like – as long as we have diversity this is fine. Let Australian media be like the rich and deep London newspapers, let the people pick and choose from the smorgasbord knowing the agendas. The scary part is that we are VERY close to imploding on diversity and losing the whole lot. If nothing else, the ABC represents diversity and a refusal to be bullied by business or government. That’s pretty powerful.

4. Reducing government accountability and transparency. This is where I get mad with John Howard. I like the bloody system and he is least qualified to change it. During the Republic debate he said the system has served us well, yet now he wants to trash it by destroying the Senate. He can’t have his cake and eat it – either he likes the Constitution or he doesn’t.

I also find the Senate INFURIATING at times, but I am just that little bit capable of seeing beyond one electoral cycle. It’s also insulting to the people to say it is “wrong”, because PEOPLE VOTE THAT WAY FOR A REASON. Personally I wouldn’t, but others do and it is their RIGHT, which he messes with at his peril!! Leave the Senate alone and leave the States alone. We have an excellent federal system and it is to the shame of John Howard that he seeks to meddle with it.

Imagine that you have to be scared of a so called conservative Liberal trashing the Senate! Times have sure changed, but there’s Buckley’s chance of that one getting up. Aaaah, how ironic – the conservatism of the electorate teaches the “most conservative leader of the Liberal party” a lesson in conservatism. I’m almost of the mind to say “Bring it on” – bring on this stupid referendum and watch it DIE. That would be funny!!

Finally, Daniel worries about a doomsday scenario for the conservatives, as in the UK. The missing ingredient is Tony Blair. Simon Crean is no Tony Blair and noone else in the ALP is within cooee of him. Australian Labor has become pitiful and it is to the detriment of our country that there is no viable opposition.

PS: I’ll always call myself a liberal. In my mind there should be no confusion about that word.

***

What is at the heart of democracy that makes it so sustainable, valuable and worth fighting for?

by Daniel Moye

Two principles lie at the heart of democracy – government of the people, by the people, for the people and one person, one vote. Sovereignty is defined exclusively by the citizen’s will in our democracy.

When the federation of Australia was founded it required that the majority of citizens in a majority of states support the founding of our haven of freedom. We decided that we would inherit the bi-cameral Westminister system of government as well as the common law as the two pillars by which our democracy would stand and fall.

Many of the checks and balances that are heralded today as a principal strength of our and other democracies were put in place to restrain ‘the Crown’ or State, as well as the will of the mob or people.

Plato, John Stuart Mill and the founding fathers of U.S. democracy repeatedly stressed that one of the main problems of democracy was that ‘mob rule’ and its appetites might not necessarily guide society down the right path. Thus, representatives of the people’s will have traditional as well as legal boundaries by which they can enforce our appetites, whether it be our need for security, our pursuit of happiness or control over our destiny.

It may be a quirk of history, but the Fourth Estate – the Press – flourished across Western democracies. Newspapers then and now focussed on high society gossip, the rise and fall of governments, war and peace – all with differing viewpoints. Governments have sought to control this powerful platform to the people’s ear from the start of the first journal. Why they did not succeed totally was as much to do with the suspicion that one day they might face the prospect that their opponents controlled the media, as with sustained resistance by proprietors and journalists alike. While this war has not ended, until quite recently a reasonable truce prevailed.

How is the functioning of our democracy and media diversity connected?

Readers – like media proprietors and journalists – have differing opinions. For the last hundred years or so in Australia different political viewpoints have been expressed in different newspapers. A dockside worker in Sydney might have read a politically conservative Mirror or Telegraph , or if more radically inclined a Daily Worker. A small ‘l’ liberal may have consumed a Sydney Morning Herald or a Sun. Many voices were heard.

A consequence of the diverse media landscape was that governments were able to connect with people on a daily or weekly basis. Citizens felt that they knew what the government was doing or not doing. This has become a critical element to the sustainability of our democracy because it maintains the enfranchisement of the people on an ongoing basis between elections.

What happens if few voices are heard in our democracy? What happens is nothing short of the disenfranchisement of the people.

A stretch, you might say. It is true that citizens will still be able to vote for or against our representatives, but what happens in between times? How do the citizens know what the government is doing and what the consequences will be? What checks are there to the representatives of the people’s will indulging in the worst appetites of the people’s will, even if for the best reasons? These questions do not even encompass the power and push of special interests of media proprietors or of political parties.

It is true that in a democracy the majority rules. But in our continual reaffirming of this noble truism we hide an equally important strength – that minorities have voices and influence too. It is not enough for democracies to let the majority reign supreme – the perils of not representing minority voices goes to the heart of its sustainability. History is littered with discontented minority groups hijacking governments, resorting to violent terrorism or demanding the dismantling of the state.

Media diversity underpins the sustainability of our democratic heritage, and the Senate also performs that function. It goes to the heart of our founding fathers’ vision of federation that all voices in all states of Australia be represented and have influence in Australian society. It is the blackest of betrayals to believe that only the majority of the House of Representatives have control over the Australian destiny.

The vision of our founding fathers is manifest in Brian Harradine gaining funding for Tasmanian issues or Democrats Senators helping the plight of South Australians. Our founding fathers’ visionary compromises have enabled Australia’s society and economy to function in a cohesive way, free from the former them-v-us, NSW-v-Victoria mentality.

Reforming the Senate will not necessarily mean revisiting past interstate battlegrounds but it will provide a slippery slope to new antagonisms. If Tasmanians, for example, believe that they are not getting a fair minority influence on the Australian political scene a ‘Tasmania first’ political party is not impossible. John Howard is obviously not a student of history – if he was he would have recognised how fragile our federation has been in its brief history. Western Australia has sought to leave the Commonwealth on more than one occasion and this, alongside the precarious federation referendums, should temper anyone’s enthusiasm for disenfranchising minority States.

The Senate also underpins the sustainability of the Australian democracy on an individual level. A sizeable proportion if not a majority of Australians are in safe seats. Within that safe seat a significant minority exists which does not want the preeminent party in that seat to represent them. It is through the Senate that this minority is heard and has influence. Some Australians also vote for different parties in the two houses. Thus it is through the Senate that all of us are enfranchised at the same time as the majority’s appetites are checked and balanced.

It may be uncomfortable for all concerned with the future of media diversity and the future of the Senate to form uneasy alliances across the political spectrum, but it is of paramount importance that these battles be won.

As a supporter of the Coalition of the Willing, fighting for democracy abroad and maintaining Australia’s territorial sovereignty, I sit uncomfortably against John Howard. But stand against him I must.

***

Philip Hewett in East Gosford, NSW

Whilst Daniel Moye makes a valid point in relation to Howard’s abuse of the concept of ‘national interest’, he unquestioningly and loosely uses loaded phrases like the ‘War on Terror’ as if they are accepted terms. He speaks of confronting rogue states, which is just more garbage speak to deflect debate from the role of US foreign policy disasters (now also Australia’s own disasters) and the greed of western corporations.

He talks of a post 9/11 world (another mindless catch-phrase) when the September attacks were no more than the trigger for the ultra-conservative (oil executive-dominated) push in Washington who wanted the Iraq scalp. These power greedy men profited and continue to profit from the WTO attacks, and as long as they do so the rest of the world will see only aggressive US self-interest writ large.

If Daniel had spoken of Howard’s’ subservience to US Foreign and Trade policy he would have hit at least one the nail on the head for me – but he didn’t. He presented lies as givens – for example describing the invasion of Iraq as ‘a war’. It was never a war – it was an invasion of a sovereign state, no more, no less – despite the propaganda he has swallowed.

How can an intelligent man believe he can see excellent management of the economy? The economy sits within ‘the national estate’ and it is in free-fall collapse – greenhouse is wildly uncontrolled, our environment is in an uncontrolled downward spiral and species extinction is travelling at the speed of light. Daniel, the economy comes to us at the expense of our national estate, and is Howard’s short-term expediency at work. The rest is smoke and mirrors and Daniel has been beguiled by the lot.

Daniel refers to an undefined long term goal of what the Iraq ‘war’ was trying to achieve. If he can detail that goal he should let us all know, including Howard. And why the euphemism of ‘spin-doctors’ for what are plain and simple propagandists – the former term has none of the ‘tending toward fascism’ baggage, I suppose.

Daniel Moyes would have more credibility in your column if he was less partisan. Cheers from a non-aligned person – I support good governance without the crap our parties wrap themselves in. Fat chance?