From time to time there is talk in Australia of parliamentary reform. Former prime minister Tony Abbott has called for constitutional reform to remove the double dissolution process. Periodically there is interest in fixed parliamentary terms for the Commonwealth parliament. This debate also canvasses whether those terms should be three or four years.
Part of the argument around the need for reform — and in support of such proposals — is that a fragmented Senate impedes the government's program. For some, this represents an interference with democracy represented by a 'mandate' held by a government to prosecute its legislative agenda.
As for fixed, or four year terms, the argument is that the current political cycle is too short, and that this hampers government's capacity to govern. On the other hand, those against fixed terms argue that four years is too long to be stuck with a 'bad' government.
I wonder however if this discussion misses the point about what might be 'wrong' with our political system, and our system of governance.
While there are valid reasons to be concerned about the capacity of a government to govern in the current brief election cycle, and in dealing with what some describe as a 'hostile senate', the networked world we presently inhabit calls into question the way in which politicians might be accountable to the public in the first place.
This suggests the need for a different discussion. In particular, rather than focusing on changes to a system of governance derived from a different era, we should be asking what are the implications of emergent technologies on the way in which we are governed. Such questions include the way in which we vote, how political parties and lobbyists seek our vote, and how we hold politicians accountable.
E-voting
Every election now we hear televised panellists speculate on the introduction of e-voting. Delays in determining clear election winners, and the loss of WA senate ballots in 2013 in particular, usually bring forth a call for e-voting which is seen to be faster and more convenient.
"Rather than focusing on changes to a system derived from a different era, we should be asking what are the implications of emergent technologies on the way in which we are governed."
The technology for e-voting exists, and a number of countries use it. Forms of e-voting have also been trialled in some Australian elections. Overall however, apart from concerns about hacking and security, there remain questions about 'scrutiny and verifiable evidence integrity' of e-voting itself. In other words, we have not yet guaranteed how we would build an electronic system that is open to public verification.
Despite its ostensible public support, the public needs to be aware of the complexities of e-voting before we enter into discussions about adopting it. This is part of a necessary broader public awareness of governance through technologies.
Political influence
Australian voters are used to corflutes, bunting, how-to-vote cards, billboards, and TV and radio advertising. In recent campaigns however, social media has played an increasing role both in candidates getting their message out and in citizens engaging with candidates.
The old one-dimensional broadcast form of advertising has given way to a networked conversation. However, where this might have begun as a means of freeing the citizen to interact with candidates, it has recently taken a more worrying turn.
An increasing number of reports indicate that political operatives in the US leveraged Facebook to manipulate users' timelines to favour Donald Trump. Cambridge Analytica uses so-called psychographic techniques to tailor a political message to a single Facebook user, relying on data harvested from that user's own Facebook use. The company is now reportedly in Australia for talks with the Liberal Party.
Unlike the US, voting is compulsory in Australia. Therefore, the extent to which such a program might influence Australian voters is open to question. Regardless, the ubiquity of social networks and big data — and their capacity to be deployed to understand and influence an individual user — is a relevant consideration in whether and how to regulate political campaigning.
Political accountability
Finally, we need to consider the question of political accountability. Arguably this lies at the basis of existing calls for reform. The Trump ascendancy and Brexit are both examples of what has been described as a widespread malaise with the political class. Voters feel that their governments do not adequately represent them. Richard Cooke in The Monthly describes the 'fading high-water mark of a particular version of parliamentary liberalism predicated on rhetoric'. Being clever with words to sell an overarching vision of society will no longer reach the people. Perhaps this goes as much to systems of governance as the lack of an articulated social vision.
The present system of political accountability relies on periodic elections. But what if we could have real-time accountability? The Pirate Party uses an online system it refers to as 'liquid democracy' to engage all its members in policy making, providing 'quantified feedback that shows ... where the majority lies on a given point'.
Advancing this idea of direct democratic participation, some see blockchain technologies as the next iteration of liquid democracy. Blockchain technology creates an online ledger that records participant transactions in a way that is auditable by the participants, making it verifiable. It would allow direct real time involvement in the democratic process. It may also allow for voters to hold politicians to their promises.
Blockchain enthusiasts Don and Alex Tapscott maintain that where politicians make promises encoded on blockchain technology, citizens can track the progress towards implementing those promises via the online ledger. Others, however, maintain that the technology is still a long way off being suitable for this purpose. Despite this, Australia Post, now actively seeking a role for itself in e-voting, has proposed blockchain voting in a Victorian parliamentary submission.
The technology may not be ready, and social attitudes and political will might be lacking. But the point remains that if we are to consider change to our governance structures, we must consider digital contexts for implementing the democratic ideal. This may itself call for a clearer vision of our democracy and its institutions.
Kate Galloway is a legal academic with an interest in social justice.
Illustration by Chris Johnston