Are Political Parties Beneficial or Detrimental to Democracy in Australia - Essay Example

?In the modern age, democracy has come to be considered to be essential in the political development of all the peoples in the world because it allows them to actively participate in the governing processes of their own countries. But while this may be the case, it can be said that political parties have also become a necessary part of the democratic process because they enable the further development of the much needed democratic ideals as well as the implementation of these ideals to ensure that they become a reality in society. Political parties have become essential in the democratic system of Australia because they enable individuals from all walks of Australian life to have a means through which they can be adequately represented in a manner that is free and transparent for all to see. The fact that they are vehicles for the further development of the Australian society cannot be underestimated because political parties can be said to be the foundation upon which the democratic system as practiced in this country is built and without them, then the democracy which has been long practiced and has become a basic part within Australian life would end up being meaningless. It is a fact that the political parties within Australia have led to the further development of democracy in the country and because of this, Australia can be considered to be among the most democratic countries in the world, boasting of a population that is free to actively participate in politics. Because of the existence of political parties in Australia, as well as the compulsory voting system, there has developed, over the past few decades, a political system in this country where most of the individuals within it have come to participate in politics in one way or the other. This is due to the fact that since all adult Australians are required to vote, they have to vote for the political parties available to ensure that they place the people of their choice in leadership positions in the society (Siaroff, 2013). Political parties, in this case have become essential to the society because they represent the diverse views of the members of Australian society and what this society requires to ensure that it remains active in the politics of the nation. The strength of Australian democracy can be said to be based on its political parties because it is often through them that the Australian people get to express their political opinions as well as ensuring that the changes that they want in their society are implemented. Political parties are extremely beneficial to democracy in Australia because they help in the swift development of the systems which are necessary to sustain the said democracy (Economou, 1997). It is often in the interests of the political parties involved to ensure that they maintain the democratic system in Australia because not to do so would create a situation where the entire state would fall into chaos, since there would be no stabilizing factor in the political sphere of society (Walsh, 2001). This shows that political parties play a crucial role in the society because they ensure that the diverse opinions of its people are represented (Zappala, 1998); hence there are no instances of dissatisfaction within it that may end up leading to revolutions such as the famous French Revolution. The Australian political system has what is considered to be a mild two party system, as seen through the existence of two dominant political groupings which often tend to pursue different political policies altogether. These groupings, namely the Australian Labour Party, and the Coalition, pursue different policies in all the aspects of government at the federal level and this ensures that the democratic system of Australia remains robust. Among the most contested aspects of policy that have often led to the coalition between these two political parties has been on matters concerning the national security of Australia. Over the last few years, there has emerged a great debate between the Australian Labour Party and the Coalition concerning the national security policies which would best guarantee the security of Australia. There are some who believe that the policies which have been put in place so far have gone too far and are in fact eroding the freedoms which have been guaranteed to all the people who are living in Australia. On the other hand, there are others who believe that what has been done so far is not enough and that more needs to be done to ensure that the nation is in a state of the highest security so that any threats to it, especially from terror groups within its neighbours such as Indonesia, can be kept at bay (He, 2011). The two political parties both have very different approaches to national security and each tends to attempt to interfere in the policies that their rivals attempt to put in place just because they do not agree with them. While this may be the case, the Australian political parties have shown great unity when dealing with matters concerning national security and this means that they have the best interests of the nation at heart. The approach to national security taken by the various political parties is based on the belief that guaranteeing the freedoms of the Australian people is the best way to ensure their security because if they feel secure in their own country and in their government’s ability to protect them, then the security risk to them would be greatly diminished (Suter, 2010). There are, however, some political parties, which are a minority, that believe that the best way to deal with matters concerning national security is by taking away some of the freedoms which people enjoy so that the government can have more room to ensure that they are protected in every way (Howard & Patten, 2006). In other words, the policy that the latter parties would prefer pursuing can be considered to be the belief that the loss of a few freedoms is a necessary component of ensuring the safety of everyone in Australia. One would suggest that the existence of political parties in Australia, while seemingly essential to the democratic process of the country, might also be detrimental to it and this is due to the fact that they have the potential of also ruining the democratic progress in the country. This is because many of these political parties, through their pursuing of negative policies, might end up ruining the democratic space of all the Australians, making the government, and not the Australian people, the sole determinant of the political process of the country (Jones & Pusey, 2008). While this may not have happened in Australia yet, it is currently taking place in other countries in the world, such as the United States, which will in this case be used as an example. The United States can be considered to be among the most democratic states in the world but while this is the case, there has developed a system, although instituted through a political and democratic process, which is slowly but surely destroying the democratic space and political freedoms upon which the United States was founded. This can be attributed to the development of a direct threat to the national security of the United States especially after the 9/11 attacks in this country. The security posture of the United States before the 9/11 attacks was very different from the one which came after these attacks. Before 9/11, the federal government played a very restricted role in the internal security of the nation and most of the security matters were left in the hands of the state and local governments. Furthermore, most of the security agencies were not on a very high alert for any foreign attacks on the United States because such threats were considered to be non-existent. Instead, security agencies concentrated on the potential from within and this was a huge flaw on their part. The American military had bases all over the world in allied countries and these had been put in place to protect American interests in these respective regions. The military had not seen much active service since the 1991 Gulf war and its presence in allied countries functioned as a deterrent to those who would wish to harm American interests. All these, however, changed after the attacks and this sparked a new debate between the Democrats and the Republicans on how to handle the issue. The war on terror which came as a result brought a large number of suspected al Qaeda members in to the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba and the matter of how to have them prosecuted raised a lot of debate. The Democrats have been in favour of having these detainees prosecuted according to the federal law of the United States within the country. The Republicans on the other hand have supported the prosecution of these detainees according to martial law because prosecuting them on American soil would be a security threat to the nation. The fact that there are divisions within these political parties has created a situation where there is the potential that these political parties will pursue different policies while in power, meaning that there might be radical changes in policy when matters of national security are concerned (Poynting, 2008). If the same situation were to take place in Australia, then the potential that the people of this nation might lose their democratic freedoms are extremely high because it is not known the extent to which such freedoms might be lost (Curran & Glynn, 2013). A second example, based on the United States, on how democratic losses might take place in Australia because of the actions of political parties is through a study of the national security legislation that were passed after the 9/11 attacks. There are many policies which were put in place immediately after the 9/11 attacks and during the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq in relation to antiterrorism and most of these laws we put in place to ensure that no other attack of the scale of the 9/11 attacks ever took place on American soil again. Some of the most controversial laws that were enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush include the following: the President’s Surveillance Program; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2008; Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act; and finally, the Patriot Act. Most of these legislations were controversial at the time of their passing and remain so today with both sides of the debate having plenty of support from the American population. The majority of the Democrats from the onset opposed these legislations stating that they went against the spirit of the American constitution which guaranteed freedom to all. They further stated that these laws interfered in the private lives of the American people because they gave the government the power to get information concerning the lives of American without first requiring a warrant (Suter, 2012). The stance of the Republican Party has been that these laws were necessary to guarantee the security of the nation and that personal interests such as the right to privacy had to be put in place for the good of the entire nation. The Republicans argue that these laws have been put in place as a strong measure to ensure the domestic security of the United States while the military defended it externally. When such a situation were to be applied to the Australian case, then one would come to the conclusion that political parties are indeed detrimental to democracy in this country (Bean & Wattenberg, 1998). If Australia were to adopt the same policies as those adopted across the political divide in the United States, the democratic space of the Australia people would have the potential of being ruined, a scenario that would not be welcomed by the Australian people. The fact that Australia is among the most stable states in the world and that it is one of the staunchest allies of the United States has made it most attractive to both potential investors as well as economic planners from already developed countries who are attempting to have a stake in the future of this country. While this has been the case, it has been observed that the government of Australia has continuously attempted to remain independent of outside political influence, and this can be attributed to the unanimous approach by the Australian political parties to put the national interests of this country before those of interest (Johanson & Glow, 2008). This has ensured that the preferences of the Australian people have remained paramount and this means that the political parties have remained beneficial to Australian democracy. Despite the fact that Australia is one of the strongest economies in the world, this country still has many problems at home, and these problems are both long term and current. The political parties of this country have come to realise that they need to have a close link with other democratic states in the world in order to ensure that the democratic ideal is spread to all those countries that do not have democracy. This has led to the development of a strong diplomatic ability by Australia as a means of connecting with the people of these states (Battin, 2008). The political parties in power in Australia often use its diplomatic ability to ensure that it manages to navigate the international scene so that this country can create an environment that is conducive for the Australian people internationally. While doing this, however, it has become important for the political parties in Australia to also consider the domestic problems that the Australians are facing and make viable attempts to fix these problems. This will help ensure that the democratic scene in Australia remains strong because of the fact that an attempt of these parties to do otherwise might lead to their demise. The two major parties in Australia are not always in opposite directions in matters of national security and they at times even come together for the sake of the welfare of the Australian people (Pannett & Curran, 2010). These parties have time and time again put aside their differences in ideology to protect the citizens of Australia and this was seen when decisions were being made in response to the attacks or potential attacks against Australian citizens, especially in the region of Bali in Indonesia. In conclusion, it can be said that the political parties in Australia often have the best interests of Australians at heart, only that they have very different approaches to achieving them. The policies on national security have been a controversial issue between them but the two major parties that dominate Australian politics have ideas which could work very well for the security of the nation. A balance between the policies of the two would most likely be the best policies to adopt for the purpose of Australian security as well as the democratic space to be guaranteed because in truth, these political parties have to work together so that Australia can retain its prominent position in the world. The political parties in Australia are the only guarantee for democracy to continue to exist in Australia, because democracy cannot exist without political parties. References Battin, T. 2008, "Contemporary Indicators of Political (Dis)engagement in Australia", Social Alternatives, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 22-28. Bean, C.S. & Wattenberg, M.P. 1998, "Attitudes towards divided government and ticket-splitting in Australia and the United States", Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 25-36. Curran, E. & Glynn, J. 2013, Small Parties Gain Power in Australia's Senate; Incoming Liberal Nationals May Have to Bargain for Upper House Success, New York, N.Y. Economou, N. 1997, "The Paradox of Parties: Australian Political Parties in the 1990s", Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 291-292. He, B. 2011, "The Awkwardness of Australian Engagement with Asia: The Dilemmas of Australian Idea of Regionalism", Japanese Journal of Political Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 267-285. Howard, C. & Patten, S. 2006, "VALUING CIVICS: POLITICAL COMMITMENT AND THE NEW CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA", Canadian Journal of Education, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 454-475. Johanson, K. & Glow, H. 2008, "Culture and Political Party Ideology in Australia", Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 37-50. Jones, P. & Pusey, M. 2008, "Mediated Political Communication in Australia: leading issues, new evidence", Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 583-599,525. Pannett, R. & Curran, E. 2010, World News: Vote Puts Australia in Political Limbo, New York, N.Y. Poynting, S. 2008, "The Attack on 'Political Correctness': Islamophobia and the Erosion of Multiculturalism in Australia Under the Howard Regime", Social Alternatives, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 5-9. Siaroff, A. 2013, "Prime ministers in power: political leadership in Britain and Australia", Choice, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1129-1130. Suter, K. 2010, THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE AND POLITICAL UPSETS IN AUSTRALIA, Contemporary Review Company Ltd, Cheam. Suter, K. 2012, POLITICAL DISENGAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA, Contemporary Review Company Ltd, Cheam. Walsh, P. 2001, "Political turmoil in Western Australia", Review - Institute of Public Affairs, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 15-17. Zappala, G. 1998, "Clientelism, political culture and ethnic politics in Australia", Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 381-397. Read More