ROY LEWISSON is a Fremantle resident and has been active in local politics for as long as the Chook can remember.

A FRIEND of mine recently said “if you are going to get into politics, be prepared to get your hands dirty”. 

Although this may be an element of current pragmatic truth, my childhood resulted in a different personal perspective.

As a baby boomer growing up in Canberra in the ‘60s and ‘70s (yes – hippy of course) and with a father who was a member of the Queensland communist party in the early ‘50s, what chance did I have ? Politics was always on the menu at the dining table and it never smelt off. 

The other declaration required – I have been involved with Kate Hulett’s campaign for the upcoming state election.

However this discussion is not about Kate nor myself – more about the elements that have lead us to our curent grubby political outcome.

Like the USA, many Australians are asking what does our so called ‘democratic process’ currently look like.

In ancient times the entire local population could pour into the town square and directly vote on various propositions. 

With population increases this simple method of attempting to make a society more sophisticated has evolved into a much more complicated system, which was simply explained at the dining table as – we elect a representative for our area and that politician represents us in Parliament.

I was under 10 at the time so the old boy had to keep it simple.

In WA recently, members of a couple of mining industry groups met with the premier to voice their opposition to the proposed federal Nature Positive legislation. 

A direct phone call appears to have been made to the PM followed by an immediate press conference where the premier boasted that the current WA government would not support the proposed legislation. 

Why did this knee jerk reaction occur?

Surely not because the premier was reminded of who are the largest financial sponsors of the ALP?

For many years I have called this type of political democracy ‘capitalised democracy’ – i.e. the major political parties obtain  capital backing to win elections, thereby gaining political power, thereby passing legislation to keep their financial sponsors happy, thereby retaining the financial backing, thereby being returned at the next election. 

This is nothing new – it has been occurring for many decades. 

There has been a lot discussion in recent media of the revolving door between big corporations and state Parliament. 

So I think a re-phrasing is in order to ‘corporate democracy’ i.e. the corporations are the puppet masters pulling the financial strings of the major political parties. 

WA is HQ for corporate democracy. The blatancy is palpable.

Pork Barreling: Definition – “The utilisation of government funds for projects designed to please voters or legislators and win votes.”

Although it has already started – brace yourself for the next six weeks, I am sure the best is yet to come.

Keep an eye on which electorates are receiving which promises.

On a recent trip out of Perth with four people in the car – we were commenting on the changes to infrastructure along the way. 

Someone commented that with a particular level of infrastructure investment we were witnessing, it had to be a marginal seat. 

For the remainder of the trip comments on infrastructure were reduced to ‘marginal seat’ or ‘safe seat’. Fremantle ? – fifth safest ALP seat in WA – hmmmmmmmm ?

Party Politics and the Two Party System

Where do you start with this one.

Maybe I can leave you with things to ponder and you may end up where I have – wondering if there is a better way to do politics.

why is it that political parties need to have ‘policy’? Is it to keep party position consistent (exit Senator Fatima Payman)?, so no one can argue the content? Is it not to offend the financial sponsors (radical MPs wanting to cease gas company advertising in sport)? 

Origins

Surely a good idea is a good idea – no matter its origins. We have all now come to ask – what are the candidates policies ? If you are not dictated to by a state or federal party executive – you clearly take the priorities for representing that electorate from the electorate.

why do we always have one political party in office (i.e. the government) and another party as an opposition? One says renewables so the other has to say nuclear, no matter how stupid or ridiculous the proposal – since they are the opposition. Most of the time the parliamentary debate would appear to be trying to score points on the other mob, rather than wanting the best possible outcome for the electorate. Surely we need to start discussing the issues, rather than slinging excrement at the other side. Such a narrow approach to flushing out what are often no-brainer decisions, because party politics are the road block.

Nothing raised above is new or original. 

I reckon we have become politically numb with politics and most people have had enough of the grubbiness. 

We are currently sitting in the pot with the frogs, slowly waiting to cook. 

Due to corporate democracy, pork barreling and party politics – it has become grubby.

I personally want to move closer a democratic model where I can at least speak to my local representative and know they have the best interests of the electorate at heart. 

The best ideas come from the community, not from political party state and federal executives. 

Am sure if my dear old dad was alive today and viewed the current way we are doing politics – he would rather return to the political idealistic days of ‘reds under the beds’ compared to this corporate, controlled malaise we are now calling a democratic political system.