BARVENNON.COM
25th October 2003
AUSTRALIAN
DIARY
- BUSH & HU JINTAO IN AUSTRALIA (2) -
Well they've been, they talked to parliament, and they left.
Australia has a preferential voting system. That makes a
difference if there are more than two candidates and a lot of
difference if there are multiple seats. Every voter may select
more than one candidate to receive his vote. If the first choice
is eliminated, then his vote goes to his second choice. At
federal level, we have a senate, that draws twelve senator
representatives from each state, voted by the state as a single
electorate. This means that a minority party with 1/13th (~8%) of
the votes including preferences can have a senator when there is a
double dissolution, or with 1/7th (~14%) of the vote including
preferences in a normal election. This has given us a number of
minority Senators, among them are the Greens (2), the Democrats (?),
senator harradine, and One Nation (1) This multiplicity of
parties means that most of the time there is no majority party in the
senate. Parliaments rely on majorities in the House of
Representatives to elect an executive. In Australia electorates
elect the Representatives. Most Australians seem to like a senate
with no party having a majority, which is capable of forming a deadlock
over controversial legislation. (I cannot recall when we last had
a senate that was not deadlocked.)
Senator Harradine is, in your diarist's opinion, the most ethical &
responsible legislator in parliament. (Sometime I might explain
why).
The greens are feeling their oats. Leader of the Greens, Bob
Brown, was responsible for being outspoken when President Bush
addressed the Parliament on Thursday. Bush took it in his
stride. "This is what democracy is all about" he said.
Mr. Hu was scheduled for Friday. Apparently he spat the
dummy. Either he or Brown didn't go. Brown was excluded.
Now while your diarist does not agree that Brown was correct in his
behavior, (read "he is a ratbag") I do defend his right to express his
views. Harradine also disagreed, but he expressed his displeasure
by not attending. Probably though, that is how things are done in
China.
It is interesting to note how the world has developed in the last few
decades. Prior to WWI the UK was a world superpower.
Although the UK was a commercial power, its preeminence was (arguably)
based on its men of science. Then came the USA. The US has
always been a "can do" society, depending not so much on pure
scientists like Newton & Maxwell, but on practical men in the
tradition of Bell and Edison. Japan is currently the second
superpower in the world. Japan has a military tradition, and
while it has a vigorous political innovation, has always depended on
the smothering of individual initiative for the good of the
community. These traditions have enabled the Japanese to copy the
technology of others very successfully, and for the last few decades
have permitted an astounding expansion. But has not enabled them
to surpass the US. The Japanese now have imitators, mostly in
ASEAN.
For the last decade the Chinese economy has had record increases in
productivity. The Chinese appear to have avoided the stifling of
economic initiative that marked the Japanese miracle. The Chinese
system has always stifled political initiative. The only way to
change politics in China is for a province to conquer the central
government. That is why they are so sensitive about Taiwan.
My own assessment is that China will asymptotically approach the USA as a power. India and Taiwan are dark horses.
EMAIL
ARCHIVES.