If you're going to criticise, do so with evidence

I recently came across this particular article, and I as always, when someone is incorrect on the internet, I have taken issue with the way in which this individual makes his point. While I obviously, come from a different ideological basis, when someone critiques the Australian system of democracy (which I passionately love), without providing any viable alternative, I feel a deep and abiding desire to delegitimise any such individual.  So here goes:

William Hebblewhite’s blog post has been constructed by an understanding of the Australian political system based on a blatant ignorance of the facts, and a romantic idealism that leaves him wilfully unaware of how the word functions. Then again, I shouldn’t be surprised. Mr Hebblewhite actually admits that his approach is one based off ‘philosophy and theory’ rather than a perspective which is informed by reality.

Now, I make no apologies for my political stance. I am a Liberal supporter, and proud of it. I get angry when Mr Hebbleewhite’s kind attacks me for being a soulless corporate sellout (or whatever this week’s fashionable insult is), because I don’t think that comes from an informed understanding of what the Liberal party’s policies actually are. I know it certainly doesn’t come from an understanding of my personal political beliefs.

But putting my own general seething irritation aside for a moment, why was I so offended by Mr Hebblewhite’s blog? There are two reasons.

The first, is that he attacks the current parliamentary system in Australia as ‘dishonest’, and a system which promotes a ‘continuation of a status quo which has outlived its prime’ without providing any viable alternative.

The second reason is that Mr Hebblewhite makes broad generalisations and claims without actually backing them up.

In his post, Mr Hebblewhite confessed to us that he ‘lays bare’ his ‘dislike for the Capitalo-parliamentary system’. I am the first to say that the Australian Democratic system is flawed. However, I think that mandatory, preferential voting constitute the best elements of democracy. This is because mandatory voting means that every citizen who is a participant in, and affected by the democratic system, don’t have the excuse of ‘I couldn’t be bothered’ or ‘I don’t really follow politics’ to fall back on come election time. Even casting an informal vote is a valid democratic expression, and the only way in which government can know to respond to that expression is if it is made in the ballot box. Otherwise, the motivations behind those who opt not to vote remain a question mark, thus effectively disenfranchising people. Furthermore, I believe that when one must vote, one actually thinks about for whom they will vote. There is more democratic participation within the system, because your average citizen is aware that they will have to make a choice between candidates, rather than a choice whether or not to vote. Secondly, the preferential system means that your vote can never work against you. Even if the candidate who is your first preference does not win in a majority, your vote then goes to your second choice, and so on. It is at this point that I highly recommend everybody watch ‘The Dictator’, and pay particular attention to the speech near the very end of the film. The message behind it is that democracy is far from perfect, but it is the best system that we have in the world.

What could possibly further undermine the credibility of that of the far left such as of whom Mr Hebblewhite claims to be a part? To me, it is the abundance of sweeping generalisations that go unsupported, and the downright incorrect factual information provided within his blog that make me wonder exactly how a system of government under the ideology of those such as Mr Hebblewhite actually would survive. We were told that the ‘fall’ of Prime Minister Howard (a politician who, by the way, I admire beyond words) presented the ‘opportunity for Australia to remove itself from the neo-liberal agenda whose sway it had been under for more than a decade.’ Poor phrasing aside, no reason was actually provided why distancing oneself from a neo-liberal agenda is a desirable thing. Similarly, when claims were made about why Kevin Rudd was a successful Prime Minister, no evidence was provided to support this belief. The irrelevant example of Prime Minister Gillard’s ‘misogyny’ video was also thrown into the mix (and by the by, that speech was a disgusting use of the fifteen minutes allotted to responding to a question in Question Time, in response to a question that was entirely fair, and at best tangentially related to the question). But more than this, I was shocked by the simply incorrect representation of the Peter Slipper scandal. Peter Slipper was appointed Speaker of the House of Representatives by Prime Minister Gillard in order to gain her an extra seat in the House, as she was aware she was going to lose the support of independents who made her minority government viable, as the speaker at the time, Harry Jenkins, was a Labor MP. After accusations of sexual harassment were initially leveled against him, the case was actually dismissed in December of last year, as it was ruled that Federal Court Justice Steven Rares had "reached the firm conclusion that Mr Ashby [the accuser]'s predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists."

I cannot comment about the misuse of cabcharge vouchers, or government funds, as I am not well informed enough on that particular ‘scandal’. But let us consider Craig Thompson (in my opinion, a vile man if ever there was one), who was arrested a few weeks ago following a long documented scandal over his alleged use of union credit cards to pay for strippers, which he denies with the excuse that he was framed multiple times. If one is looking to classify politicians as the lowest form of human life, the surely the finger should first be pointed at the Labor party. Peter Slipper had the grace to resign from his position as Parliamentary Speaker following the investigations centering around him. Craig Thompson was effectively kicked out of the Labor party, and stands as an independent. Talk about washing their hands of him.

I believe in the Australian democratic system. I think that it is flawed, but it is the best system that we have, and to criticisie it without providing an alternative is the lowest form of corwardly self-indulgence. I am proud of my political beliefs, and I believe that nobody who masquerades behind the facade of a ‘theoretical’ approach should be allowed to get away with what is in my opinion, blatant idiocy.