Dem_Discussions: Peter Raven

This week, we are sharing a submission provided by interested observer, Peter Raven. Peter has generously taken the time to provide thought-provoking feedback on Dem36's discussion paper, taking a sweeping view of democratic history, philosophy, and current challenges.

—Peter Raven’s submission follows verbatim—

Comments after reading “Towards a Charter for Democratic Renewal in South Australia”

I believe that the objectives for a Democratic Government have to be designed to work with both lower level Government and the Federal Government. And of course introducing National Government was not easy in the USA or here. But it must be a major difficultly to ensure acceptable and stable relations between all levels. On an idealistic note, the idea of a body which represents all the Countries of the World should be considered too. Any State which shows innovation in a State’s democratic structure should be thinking of how that could reflect into democratic renewal at the National and International level. It is assumed that the United Nations, as was the League of Nations are regarded largely as failed experiments.

Which is the preferred system of picking a leader of State Governments? One where the elected members of the Assembly or House of Representatives elect a leader, to be regraded as first among equals, or one where the leader is elected directly by the electorate? The UK system which evolved slowly appears to give the Parliament more power. It may be argued that the members of Parliament are better informed on who, amongst themselves is better suited to be the leader of the House and the Nations or State’s representative on the World stage. Would that work at the lower level of Government, where local Councils would elect their member to represent them in Parliament, or House of Assembly? Political parties would not like that as it would reduce their power, but it could result in a more representative House of Assembly. Clearly there would still be polarisation to Left or Right. It may look like a House of ‘amateurs’ in politics, but it could be more representative. Or even have direct election to the Assembly and election from local councils to part of the Legislative body

An issue on which I an unclear about is when Ministers in a Government need to consult with experts, to be sure that they have relevant information for making decisions. How are those experts chosen. Is this a route of decision making which is not as visible as it should be?

Our candidates in Local Government seem to approach electability on the basis of a new cricket pitch in their village, or it least matters of extreme local appeal. The individuals only chance to influence the course of the ship of State, is in the elections for the State and National (Federal) Governments. Can there be some way in which the elector can show support for some policies, while dis-interest or opposition to others. The complexity of doing that has made such an idea impracticable in the past, but perhaps this is an area where the power of computers may be put to good use.

I believe Propaganda is a most significance influencer in Society as a whole. I imagine it has existed in some form or other since time of the infamous Joseph Goebbels who was a master of thinking of the whole population of Germany. It has been practiced in more subtle ways ever since. Sometimes it has occurred as when Queen Elizabeth opened of Calder Hall with the slogan “Atoms for Peace” in the ‘50s. Its purpose was fuel for Nuclear weapons. I imagine she was only saying what she had been told that was justified on basis of National security. On a more political note the Tory party under Thatcher made no mention of Privatisation in their early Manifesto, but when in power she started creeping privatisation with Amherst Internation, followed by stream of statements how good this was for Industry and the Country. In reality she was in close contact with Regan and learning how to manipulate the population and economy the US way.

I doubt one can ever fully counter well designed propaganda and possibly the only way is to ensure that the population is well educated. By that .I don’t mean everybody having a degree, rather than people can think for themselves. But like medical immunisation, it may not always work.

The Judiciary has to be an independent upholder of the law, but recent years have shown even that independence can be eroded. I would expect the legal profession to maintain that the training and ethics provides a profession, which by its very calling can be relied on for honesty, and hence of leaving the appointment of Judges to that legal community itself. While not perfect it is better than allowing political appointments. Trial by Jury is an accepted right. The choice of Jury members is generally well balanced . I have only experienced the UK system, with its random selection of Jurors within certain restraints. The methods of selection need to keep pace with changes in the structure of Society.

In Ancient Greece, Aristotle believed in a democratic form of Government, but only the educated class were allowed to participate, so it doesn’t meet the criteria of total franchise. However it can be interpreted as the idea that a democracy needs an educated populace. In present Society there is a great deal of education aimed at skills which will be useful for particular careers, with its concentration on learning and then being examined on a defined body of knowledge. It can be argued that while that type of education may have been suitable at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the World which we are educating our children for now, requires them to be able to think creatively and critically, for it appears to be a world of much greater complexity than in any previous age. We don’t know exactly what skills may be needed, but the skills required tomorrow will almost certainly be different to the present. We can look back at over a century of technological development and observe that it was near impossible to predict the future On starting my own employment in the 1950s, my career in electronics, communications and computing was one of continuous change, so I find it difficult to predict the future requirements, other to say we need people who have learnt how to cope with change, who have become accustomed to thinking for themselves and being creative, in addition to being knowledgeable. And for democracy that means being able to judge issues and be able to judge the ideas of others for themselves. And to limit the insidious power of propaganda. Democracy can’t work well when the population is subject to ever more powerful ways of controlling how people think. A progressive education, for example Constructivist methods encourages children to determine their own path of learning, which is allowing to children develop the ability to think for themselves. It does not produce a Society where every thinks the same but allows the direction of Society to be determined by democratic decision making. If we don’t ensure a free thinking population, then a minority with the powerful tools of propaganda will control the world, which in the current state of the world will lead to disaster. Democracy and Education have to have the support of each other.

-Peter Raven, 2026

© 2025. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy

ABN 34 735 225 762