Democracy the Smokescreen

It's official. According to representatives of both sides of the political spectrum, democracy is dead. Or at least woefully lacking in our current society.

According to the "Occupy (insert metropolis here)", they are part of a large proportion of the population not being heard or represented. What they need is more democracy.

On the other side of the divide, it is obvious that democracy doesn't need a doctor, it needs a priest. The passage of the carbon reduction scheme is proof positive that, in Australia at least, democracy is no longer alive.

Now read those first few paragraphs again and try to suspend your disbelief. Done?

This is clearly hogwash, but claiming a lack of democracy is a wonderful and effective tool for advocating for a policy position, and criticising those who don't agree with you.

Those who occupied city centres across the world are critical of the current capitalist system that operates in many successful nations. That is their policy position.

Their problem is the democratic process hasn't worked for them, or they're just not very good at it. In fact, what many anti-capitalist policy positions have in common is they've been adopted by nations at roughly the same time as they've abandoned democracy. So pluralism isn't one of the anti-capitalist's strong suits, but don't let that get in the way of a really good demonstration and sit-in, followed by the inevitable removal and scuffle with law enforcement officers.

On the other hand, does the passage of the carbon tax really signal the death of democracy, such as those who participated in the "convoy of no-confidence" suggested? Of course not.

In fact, the whole damn saga related to the Gillard Government's efforts to introduce a scheme to reduce the amount of carbon Australia collectively emits has been a clear demonstration of democracy at work, for all its successes and failures. Australia, pluralist and tolerant, with her government expressing a compromise between mainstream and minority opinion, arriving at a policy position developed by representatives as wide ranging as the land it comes from; the laneways and townhouses of inner Melbourne, and the wide expanses of the frontier of north-western New South Wales.

What we see in this debate is not another fatal blow for democracy, but a mere policy disagreement, albeit on a area of policy which may or may not be the most important to human kind since the Cold War.

It is important that a wide range of views are represented in a vibrant democracy, but this clearly is happening. Bob Brown and Barnaby Joyce share the same house of our parliament. And both are having a meaningful effect on our national discourse, and the legislation our democratically elected parliament is passing. 

So, for now, save the obituaries for democracy. It's quite clearly alive and well.

And let's consign the lack of democracy talk to the archives of overblown political hyperbole.

Religion and Sport

Tim Tebow is a champion quarterback for the University of Florida football team. He's a interesting case from a sporting point of view, because many argue his skill set isn't easily transferable to the professional game, the NFL.

He's also a devout Christian. So devout, he writes Bible verses on the black stickers he wears under his eyes. And he's about to cause some controversy in the USA.

Tebow and his mother will star in an ad due to run during the Superbowl on CBS on Sunday evening US time, which will detail his personal story. Tebow's mother suffered complications with her pregnancy, was advised to abort the child that became Tim, and went contrary to that advice and carried the child to term.

The ad will advocate a strong pro-life position, but it is the placement of a major sporting star at the centre of perhaps the most contentious political and moral issue facing the USA today, during the most popular sporting and television event of the US calendar, that makes this all the more interesting.

One could argue that this sort of thing could only happen in America. Sports stars routinely thank God for intervening and helping them make a major impact on the sporting field.

The fact is this simply cannot be the case. God is not picking favourites in a mere sporting contest - if he did, the sentimental favourite would always win.

In Australia, we've always been a bit more muted in this regard. Matthew Hayden copped some flack when he crossed himself whenever he scored a century. Shaun Hart mentioned "his Lord and Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" when he won the Norm Smith Medal, and Gary Ablett did a similar thing.

The difference between Hayden, Hart & Ablett's utterances and some of the utterances that occur on the other side of the Pacific is the Australians were merely thanking God for making their performances possible. That's not the same as making the performances happen, or altering that ethereal element we know as luck to favour one side over another.

Tebow is crossing another line again - he is proselytising. He is doing so in a time and a culture where the idea that God is intervening in the everyday lives, and in particular the politics, of people, is becoming more prevelent. That Tebow feels the impulse to make the sporting field an arena for publicising certain extracts from the Bible demonstrates how strongly he feels, but it also makes intensifies the idea that all sports people are role models.

This may lead to some thinking Tebow is some sort of expert on this matter. He's a professional athlete; a "jock" if you will. He's not a theologian, or even ordained. But many, many young people would look up to him, certainly more young people than would a famous evangelist or Archbishop.

I, for one, hope we don't ever go down this road in Australia, and this opinion comes from a church going Catholic. God, whatever God is, doesn't care about recreational pastimes such as sport, even if they are careers for many people. I don't like playing the perspective card when it comes to sport, but this blows sport's importance out of all proportion.

I have a very strong view that religious belief is something that is very personal: a covenant between a person and God. Lord knows I've looked to the heavens and implored God's intervention in a sporting contest, but those have been moments of illogical weakness, brought about by the performance of a beloved sporting team. To use the sporting field as a platform for religious conversion is something that is inappropriate and potentially dangerous, and also doesn't sit well in a pluralist, multicultural society. The less of this, the better.

My Australia Day thoughts

I did something yesterday I can never really remember doing.

I did something celebratory on Australia Day.

Normally, I usually just sit at home and watch Australia play someone at cricket, occasionally flicking over to the tennis. If the day is a Monday, it may coincide with the Championship Games in the NFL. In short, I'd probably give the answer about Australia Day that the little kid in the BigPond ads does.

However, yesterday I went to one of Rose's school chums' places for a barbeque and some fun in her pool. Despite all attendees being required to wear Aussie Flag temporary tattoos, I somehow got out of that. And Skye's family house is a testament to pretty much all that is good about Australia: her father is caucasian, probably of British heritage, while her mother is Muslim. All over the house are posters promoting Australian flora and fauna, a very kitsch "Advance Australia" rug in the hall way, pool and barbeque out the back. It was, on all accounts, a very good day.

I'm not really comfortable with overt displays of patriotism. While I deplore the word "jingoism", I like to think that Australia has always embraced an understated patrotism, one that doesn't surface during while the National Anthem is being played (an ordinary, but fairly inoffensive anthem by international standards), but does surface after events like Black Saturday.

Australia is moving towards more overt patriotism: there's not much doubt about that. This can manifest in something as benign as wearing the Australian Flag as a cape, but can also move towards racism and intolerance, which is actually when you stop celebrating Australia Day. After all, almost everyone in Australia is from someone else. While I would like to think we could stay as respectful and dignified about our national pride as we were before, we are becoming a little more like the US in wearing our patriotism more obviously.

There is also the unease many people feel with celebrating a day such as January 26, when the white man landed and never left. However, the fact is that most any date that Australia Day could be celebrated, would be problematic. And there are no dates of national significance in August or September, when people (especially in Victoria) really need a day off.

In the final analysis, we need to accept, celebrate and acknowldge who we are and where we've been. We're a country that has a national broadcaster who has the same post office box in every capital city because it was a cricketer's final test batting average. We have another national day which commemorates one of the greatest mistakes in military history, but we see it as the birth of a national spirit. We have a holiday for a horse race. We've had a Prime Minister almost encourage people to take the day off work, and another who crowd surfed while in office. We have highways named after footballers and lanes named after rock bands.

I don't know what you'd call that, but I call it pretty close to the best country in the world. Hope you had a good one.