.png)
.png){kind=small}
Alexander Titus, Global Voices Policy Fellow, Y20 2023 Scholar
Executive Summary
Over the past two decades, Australians’ trust in democracy has been in freefall. Between 2007 and 2018, the number of Australians who say they trust Australian democracy decreased from 85.60% to 40.56%, representing a more than 40% decline (Karp and Evans, 2018). The loss of trust has deeply affected local Australian communities. Although trust in local councils has always remained higher than in the federal government, a loss of trust in the democratic system affects local council’s capacity to function because people can disengage. Local governments have thus languished and failed to foster engagement (Biddle and Gray, 2023). Although trust in government recovered marginally after the last election, now resting at around 43%, it is still less than 50% and is again on a downward trend (Biddle and Gray, 2023). The current state of government has fuelled in equal parts apathy and the rise of fringe groups such as the Australian anti-vax, QAnon and the Sovereign Citizens movements, which have capitalised on the growing distance between Australian governments and their constituents (Chou, Busbridge and Moffit, 2023). These groups have worked to decrease trust in government and take over weak local governments to spread their conspiracies (Norman, 2023). Therefore, restoring trust in democracy is essential to rebuilding not only the relationship between government and its people but also the state of grassroots communities (Bergin, 2017). While a wide range of reforms will be required to achieve this ambition, one way that Australia can make a positive change is to create ‘inclusive and accountable local governments.’
For this policy proposal, ‘accountable’ local governments are those that have a strong and responsive relationship with their electorate. This policy suggests that this would be achieved by improving electoral laws to encourage voter engagement and reduce voter fatigue. On the other hand, ‘inclusive’ local governments are those that not only include a wider range of people but are designed to ensure better local-level governance. This would ensure that people are incentivised to participate in local council politics and that this process is equitable and inclusive to breathe life back into local communities.
Problem Identification
Australian democracy is inaccessible to both the broad majority and vulnerable minorities; outside of voting, the average Australian has little active engagement in political organising and community building (Nicholas, 2023). Some key causes of this problem are that Australian local governments have failed to take a more robust role in our democracy and that our electoral system has failed to keep up with the diversity of Australian communities (ref). The result of these weaknesses is that our democratic systems have led people to feeling excluded and ultimately disfranchised (ref).
At present, the number of people a federal Member of Parliament in the Lower House represents varies per state. For example, in Tasmania an MP represents 80,000 people, while in South Australia they represent 127,000 people (Massola and Wright, 2023). These numbers often exclude smaller communities that exist in specific geographic regions, such as ethnic, religious or political minorities, from being able to wholly elect representatives in parliament. This is also apparent at the state and territory level, where seats can represent between 20,000 to 50,000 constituents. The electoral system, therefore, favours a hypothetical ‘average’ Australian by flattening the potential diversity that can be seen at a local level. In many instances representing the average can be a positive as it acts as a guard against radicalism. But with a growing cultural and political diversity, it is limiting Australians from being genuinely enfranchised. This ‘flattening’ leads to frustration at the margins, entrenching a two-party system that ultimately stifles democratic reform and leads to a sense of distance and apathy – all factors that lead to a deterioration of trust (Tormey, 2016). Consequently, Australian democracy has struggled to garner support and represent the diversity of its communities, especially those who find themselves removed from the traditional apparatuses of the state (ref).
The consequence is that our democracy does not represent vulnerable groups or even the broad majority. Instead, it favours those with a strong understanding of state power and politics rather than community-based leadership.
Context
Policy Recommendation
Conclusion
References
-------
The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.