Dem_Discussions: Stewart Sweeney
In Dem_Discussions posts, we share feedback and ideas provided to us, with the aim of generating public discussion on aspects of our democracy.
DEM_DISCUSSIONS
This week, we are sharing a submission provided by Stewart Sweeney. In his submission, Stewart, who has a wealth of experience in government and research roles, makes the case that 'democratic stewardship of economic and institutional power' should be added as one of the Charter's Principles for Democratic Renewal. Stewart asks us to imagine a democracy in which people have a say not only over decisions that are made in parliament and councils, but also over decisions in the economic sphere – in workplaces, industry, media, and in economic and urban development.
Stewart's submission makes a strong case for expanding our conception and practice of democracy, while also providing a fascinating insight into an innovative period in South Australia's history where expansive ideas like these were once very much on the agenda.
We encourage you to read Stewart's submission in full below, and provide your comments on our website feedback form or via LinkedIN.
—Stewart Sweeney's submission follows verbatim—
Reflections on Towards a Charter for Democratic Renewal in South Australia
I warmly welcome this discussion paper. It is thoughtful, ambitious and timely. It recognises that democracy cannot simply be inherited; it must continually be renewed if it is to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world.
The proposal to spend the decade leading to South Australia’s bicentenary engaging citizens in a conversation about democracy is itself an important democratic act. Rather than beginning with fixed conclusions, the paper invites South Australians to think together about what democracy should mean in the twenty-first century. I strongly support that approach.
The four principles identified in the paper of political equality, government of, by and for the people, empowered communities, and open government provide an excellent foundation. Equally welcome is the placing of reconciliation with First Peoples at the heart of democratic renewal.
I also welcome the willingness to ask large constitutional questions. Citizens’ assemblies, democratic audits, a Human Rights Charter, proportional representation, stronger local government, reform of political donations and lobbying, public-interest journalism and civic education all deserve serious public discussion.
Yet reading this paper also reminded me that South Australia has travelled this road before.
I arrived in South Australia in 1975 to work on the Dunstan Government’s industrial democracy initiatives. It was an extraordinary time intellectually. There was a widespread belief that democracy should not stop at the ballot box. The question being explored was whether democratic principles could also shape workplaces, public administration and economic life.
Looking back today, I think this period has been largely forgotten.
Most South Australians remember the Dunstan Government for electoral reform, anti- discrimination legislation, Aboriginal rights, consumer protection, planning reform, environmental protection, multiculturalism and the arts. Those achievements rightly deserve celebration. But Don Dunstan himself remembered something else.
In the closing chapter of Felicia: The Political Memoirs of Don Dunstan, written after illness forced his resignation, he reflected on what remained unfinished. Remarkably, he identified only two major tasks for “effective social democracy”. The first was industrial democracy based on “an effective say for employees and investors in the workplace.” The second was democratising the media through greater diversity, accountability and public access to information.
These were not marginal ideas. Dunstan saw them as the next stage of democratic development.
The Industrial Democracy Unit established within government was intended to begin this journey through experiments in the public sector before extending democratic participation into industries receiving public assistance and, ultimately, more broadly across the economy. It represented the most ambitious attempt in Australia to extend democratic principles beyond Parliament into working life and the institutions that shape everyday life.
Dunstan regarded the ending of this work after his resignation as one of his deepest regrets. The Industrial Democracy Unit was wound back. The broader project disappeared from public debate. South Australia moved in a different direction, first towards managerialism and later towards the market-centred reforms of the 1980s and 1990s.
That history has important implications for this discussion paper.
The Charter asks how democracy should work. I believe we should also ask where democracy should exist.
Today we readily accept that democracy belongs in Parliament and local government. We increasingly recognise its importance in communities, civic organisations and public participation. But what about workplaces? What about planning decisions? What about ownership of public land? What about housing? What about artificial intelligence? What about the media? What about the economic institutions that increasingly shape our lives as profoundly as governments themselves?
Democratic renewal cannot be confined to improving political institutions alone. Democracy is also weakened when economic power becomes increasingly concentrated and less accountable.
In South Australia this is not an abstract concern. The influence of property development over urban planning, the commercialisation of public spaces, the future of the Park Lands, housing affordability, lobbying, political donations, media concentration and the growing centralisation of executive power all demonstrate that questions of economic power have become democratic questions.
For that reason I would encourage Dem36 to consider adding a fifth organising principle alongside the four already proposed:
Democratic stewardship of economic and institutional power.
Such a principle would not prescribe particular economic outcomes or ideological positions. Rather, it would ask a democratic question:
How can citizens exercise meaningful influence over the institutions and economic forces that shape their lives?
That question naturally embraces industrial democracy, democratic planning, transparent lobbying, public-interest media, stewardship of common assets, stronger local government, cooperative enterprise, public participation in economic development and the rights of future generations.
It also speaks directly to the ecological challenges that will define the next fifty years. Climate change, biodiversity loss and the stewardship of land, water and public space require forms of democratic governance that extend well beyond periodic elections.
South Australia has been a global democratic innovator before. We pioneered the secret ballot, expanded political rights and demonstrated that social reform and democratic reform could proceed together. During the Dunstan years we briefly explored the possibility that democracy might also extend into workplaces, public institutions and economic life.
Perhaps the time has come to recover that forgotten thread.
The greatest contribution the Charter could make would not simply be to refresh our constitutional arrangements. It would be to renew the South Australian democratic imagination itself.
As we approach 2036, we should be asking not only how we improve representative democracy, but how democracy itself can become a deeper organising principle of our society—politically, economically, culturally and ecologically.
That, I believe, would honour both South Australia’s democratic past and its democratic future.