Finland, Finland, Finland*
Finland goes to the polls to choose a new president on January 22. Like our Governor-General, the President of Finland has limited constitutional powers, with the notable exception of Foreign Policy (excluding the European Union). Unlike our Governor-General, they are elected and an actual head of state.
The Finnish Ministry of Justice has the details on the election of the president, which is a second-round system. If no candidate gains a majority of votes on the January 22 poll, a second round will be held between the top two candidates on 5 February. It seems to be a fairly exhaustive way of electing a president, the preferential system used in Ireland for their presidential elections seems a lot more straightforward.
*Apologies to Monty Python.
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
And, of course, all the candidates are career politicians'. Which raises the question: in Australia, if we adopt direct-election, who will be the President?
The Republicans were so stupid back in 1999 that Malcolm Turnbull nominated Phil Clearly and Paddy McGuinness in turn nominated Malcolm Turnbull. It's lovely the ARM support the political class to replace a women with such dignity and grace as HM Queen Elizabeth II.
Again, as in Ireland, the nomination process is controlled by parliament, so you get politicians nominated. An Australian republic with public nominations would avoid that issue.
It is also simplistic to discount anyone who was ever a parliamentarian. People should be judged on their merits not discounted because of a prejudice against people who have previously been elected to public office.
Gobbledygook:
* In Finland, the people can also nominate a candidate (a mere 20 000 signatures is required). This means to date (given the next President will most certainly a career politican) that 66% of the people who have occupied the Presidency will be former career politicans'. In Portgual: 75% of their Presidents have been former MPs (often PMs), despite public nominations. In Slovenia, all the Presidents have been politicans' despite public nominations. We will see whether Iceland, who also has public nominations of a mere 1500 signatures, elected a politican later this year (30 June 2012 is the scheduled election date) - but we know to date, 50% of the office has been occupied by career politicans'. Both Iceland and Austria at present also has a career politican. In long-run, direct-election is politicized and dominated by career politicans'. By contrast, in our splendid monarchy, while early in the 1900s (to about the late 1960s) there were politicans' occupying the office, increasingly (over the last 30 years) they have been chosen from non-political fields (law, academia, religious bodies etc). Bill Hayden is the exception in Oz.
* Who will then have the resources to run for office, other than the political parties? Who will have the resources to collect these signatures required, but giant corporations or the political parties? And if it is not political, why bother collecting the signatures to begin with?
* What sort of people would stand for the office? What sort of people do you expect to occupy the position and face constant media scrutiny (naturally, politicans' are already immune to this and as such they will always put up their hand given their experience as an MP)? Does this simply not highlight the fact the political climate in Australia (possibly Finland, Iceland, Portgual) has been so bereft of 'worthy people' (academics, Professors, scientists, dipolmats, doctors, charity workers), who would put themselves up to scrutiny?
Of course... this is just some of the doubts about direct-election (not that Parliamentary election is any better) - and that is well before people like me start to argue do NOT vote for this Republic; wait until the model makes the people The Sovereign, i.e. it has direct democracy.
Indeed, as noted, the Republican elite are viciously and religiously opposed to priniciple of allowing the people to have a say of which sort of system they want for their country - if there are any problems with direct-election, or the President acts in a bizarre fashion, the initiative-and-referenda could easily address the concerns, providing a gun behind the door of any spiteful President 'who hears voices'. Equally, monarchists should not be opposed to my model as they could always run a referendum to revert back to the moanrchy if the Republic 'fails' - though one wonders why we need the monarchy as a 'check and balance' given the people are now that real 'check and balance'.
Thus, the philosophical priniciple underpinning modern Republicanism in Australia and New Zealand is not "power to the people", but "please, at all costs, let us centralize power and give the people little involvement in government as possible - even strip them of watching their natural law right to watch their Sovereign wave her hands at them as our collective Head". Yawn.
We are told:
It is also simplistic to discount anyone who was ever a parliamentarian. People should be judged on their merits not discounted because of a prejudice against people who have previously been elected to public office.
But is that really unjusified or unthinkable to have a presumption that politicans' have a lust for power? Take the, a priori, views of James Buchannan:
[S]uppose that a monopoly right is to be auctioned; whom will we predict to be the highest bidder? Surely we can presume that the person who intends to exploit the monopoly power most fully, the one for whom the expected profit is highest, will be among the highest bidders for the franchise. In the same way, positions of political power will tend to attract those persons who place higher values on the possession of such power. These persons will tend to be the highest bidders in the allocation of political offices. . . . Is there any presumption that political rent seeking will ultimately allocate offices to the ‘best’ persons? Is there not the overwhelming presumption that offices will be secured by those who value power most highly and who seek to use such power of discretion in the furtherance of their personal projects, be these moral or otherwise? Genuine public-interest motivations may exist and may even be widespread, but are these motivations sufficiently passionate to stimulate people to fight for political office, to compete with those whose passions include the desire to wield power over others?
If the goal of the President is to be 'above politics' and a 'symbol of unity', (1) their past political baggage is always there (the 'socialist' President, or the 'conservative' President even if inadvertentlyreferred to as such in the media) - some might not like them for this reason, others might simply be put of by the entire concept; (2) even if they have 'merits', why should their 'political merits' trump their literary, academic, social, cultural of other candidates, i.e. trumping other candidates who might not have the resources (to mount a widespread campaign) or political links (to secure a nomination and endorsement)? (3) it seems fair to say the electorate are fairly cynical of politicans' and (1) and (2) might simply perpetuate that.
Spadj, I get that you like direct democracy. You don't need to constantly spam this website to make that point, or hijack our posts. As I've said before numerous times, if you don't like the ARM's policies, join them and convince them to change them - or start your own direct democracy campaign. Simply standing on the sidelines and slamming anyone who doesn't see things your way as "elites" is pointless and achieves nothing but the perpetuation of the monarchy.
It's pretty clear that parties dominate the nomination process.
As I have said elsewhere your posts are far too long. They are also very polemical and tend toward the bombastic. Banging on about direct democracy anywhere and everywhere you can will only put people off the whole idea. Far better to choose a better forum than this one to go on about it.
As to your prejudices, yes some politicians are more interested in their own careers than in improving the country. Some politicians put the greater good before their own families and professional careers (especially in local government) . It is silly to generalize and base an argument on an anti-politician prejudice.
Yes by all means be wary of a system that favours or privileges ex and current politicians but there is no reason to exclude them entirely or expect them not be interested in the role. We will certainly be advocating for ways of ensuring that non-politicians are also able to successfully run for public office as the Head of State.
The fact is, having more referendums is not an essential part of becoming a republic. It might make for a better republic but that is a separate issue. Yes the notion of giving power to the people is a great one and we support as the basis of why we campaign. Power from the people - Power to the people. However, it doesn't have to happen all at once. In fact it may better if it happens in calm and well considered steps. Constitutional change is almost always incremental because as many people as possible have to be involved in the debate and that takes a lot of time.
There is nothing "bombastic" about logic. Confronting yes, bombastic no.
This is not the forum for discussing Direct Democracy. Try contacting the Campaign for Better Democracy .
Thanks.
Post new comment