2007 has been, and will continue to present, an interesting year in Australian politics. It has signified the 11th year of John Howard’s Prime Ministership and Coalition governance. It has also seen the emergence of an intelligent, charismatic Labor leader in Queensland’s Kevin Rudd, who, at this point in time, presents the most viable option for a future Labor Prime Minister since Keating. The leadership conundrum between Howard and Rudd poses to be an interesting example of how and where Australian politics is in the early 21st Century. However, the leadership conundrum position as the front runner of examples has been under constant attack over the last month. First, through Burkegate, and now through, what can only be described as a complete lack of diligence and forethought a member of Howard’s Cabinet, in Santo Santoro Affair. Both Burkegate and the Santoro Affair have shown, at last, the presence and influence lobbyist have in Australian politics. Sure, any worldly person would understand that lobbyist exists, but before the events of the last month, it would have been thought that this was an issue that doesn’t affect Australia like it does the U.S. or the U.K. and E.U. We now see that is view isn’t correct and presents a worrying outlook on Australian politics. It poses questions to where the validity and responsibility of our elected officials lays. Is our Federal and State government, which is voted for by the entire population, the voice of a select few? And, subsequently, how “representative” is our representative of government?

Let’s leave that question there for the time being and take a closer look at Australia’s leadership conundrum. I say conundrum because of the precarious position of Australian Politics has in 2007. Howard is our second longest serving Prime Minister and while that is something to celebrate as a country it is also a worrying sign. It is fair to say that the previous elections have provided Australia with the choice between the classic saying of “the devil we know or the devil we don’t.” The Howard-Latham campaign was a classic (remember the L-Plate adverts). I’m not saying that the Coalition won just because the alternative wasn’t any better, but the campaign’s promises definitely liked to point this fact out to the electorate (Well Managed Economy and Interest Rates as one example). Anyway, back to the conundrum, and Howard’s and the Coalition’s time in power now presents a liability as opposed to a strength in the 2007 election battle. Western Democracy has shown that the people, and I use that phrase loosely, inherently swing their votes in 15-20 year cycles and Australia is coming towards the end of its current cycle. Combine this with Howard’s age and length in office and the liability can be seen. Also though, the recent resignation/sacking of Santos Santoro and Ian Campbell has shown that holes are starting to appear in the Coalition. For the past 10 years the wholes have been relatively small and patched up quickly. Sure, the AWB scandal had some big names involved and allowed the newspapers to fill the pages but, seriously, Labor’s disarray at the time allowed the government to escape relatively unsaved. We digress. The resignations of Santoro and Campbell not only show the holes, but, when combined with the recent Cabinet reshuffle in which long-time scapegoat Amanda Vanstone was dumped, present a Cabinet almost as inexperienced as that of Labor. Costello, Downer and Rudd’s experience is quickly counteracted by the presence of freshman MP’s such as Malcolm Turnbull and Christopher Pyne at the table, while previously important portfolios like immigration now have the face of the unions’ dartboards, Kevin Andrews, attached to it. All in all, the Coalition no longer presents an ultra-experienced government that has guided Australia down a path of stable economic prosperity. It does, however, present Labor with its greatest opportunity to govern since 1996.
These events of 2007 and the constant talk about the coming election and Howard v Rudd has made my thoughts turn back towards my passion for an Australian Republic. My idea of an Australian Republic is somewhat different to that presented in the 1999 Referendum. Unlike the ’99 vote, I don’t believe Australia should simply replace our Governor General with a ceremonial President. Rather, Australia should change our form of government from the Westminster system to one that incorporates a more direct form of representation. My arguments’ for this are as follows:

1) Frequently, Federal and State elections have presented the electorate with a choice between the “lesser of two evils.” The votes received by Nick Xenophon in South Australia’s last election indicate this. Through a more direct representation, where candidates go through a nominating process rather than a small party vote or discussion in a smoke filled room, would allow voters a legitimate vote for who they want to represent them.

2) Following on from the first point, currently our form of government allows us to choose which party will represent us better. This means if you think the leader of one party will run Australia well but you think your local candidate, from a different party, will represent your area better you currently cannot vote for both. By introducing a form of representation this would be a viable option and will provide Australia politics with a greater diversity and independence.

3) As the corruption and influence scandals of the last month have shown, the amount of accountability ministers and elected members have is being questioned. Sure they will get sacked from the Cabinet position, but in the current form of representation they are accountable to their party who may or may not refuse to remove them from running. With direct representation, they will be accountable to the voters in their electorate. If they stuff up the voters will decide if they are worthy enough to be a candidate, let alone a member of parliament.

4) The end of the last century and the beginning of this century has seen the presence of popular politics in society flourish as technology and alternative media sources grows. The internet has allowed culture and society to move and evolve, the natural progression of this is for politics to evolve too. It is already happened in the United States, the Bush family has its own private internet portal to allow its many friends and relatives to keep in touch, while every candidate in the 2008 Presidential race invests heavily in using the internet to promote their cause. As popular politics continues to flourish, Australia as a society faces the possibility of being left behind if it continues to use its current form of governance. If a direct form of governance is not introduced, generations x, y and z with our mySpaces, blogs and YouTube video’s, may begin to feel alienated and disconnected from the political process which runs this country. If the people don’t care who runs the country, who will?

Thus, for Australia to remain a competitive, flourishing, proud nation, it is imperative that it allows the people who make this country great to have a direct voice in who leads them.