Australia: 'A true democracy is where the voice of the people is heard'
By Kevin Donnelly, Australian Catholic University
In the entrance to the Victorian Parliament the words "Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety" can be seen on the mosaic floor. The belief is that power should never be concentrated where only a few direct the lives of others and that political control and decision-making must be dispersed.
While the Biblical proverb is most relevant to how our Westminster parliamentary democracy works it is also relevant to the debate about whether or not there should be a plebiscite, or people's vote, on the issue of changing the definition of marriage.
In totalitarian and autocratic regimes, whether theocracies or secular dictatorships, power is restricted to the few and the majority is silenced and unable to make its voice heard or to influence how society is shaped.
Thankfully, in liberal democracies like Australia the opposite is the case. Freedom of expression, universal suffrage and the concept of popular sovereignty are hard won rights that underpin our way of life.
At the heart of the debate about the proposed plebiscite is the question of whether sovereignty lies with the people or whether our elected representatives should make decisions on our behalf. Should power be ceded to those we elect or should there be occasions where the people decide?
As argued by political and moral philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, and based on the concepts of a social contract and popular sovereignty, political decisions are based on the will of the people and not the state.
Best illustrated by the American Declaration of Independence, the belief is that individuals have been created with unalienable rights and that to protect these rights "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".
To argue the case for popular sovereignty is not to suggest that parliaments are disbanded and that the people are the sole decision makers. Australia is not like ancient Athens or Rome where it was possible to gather together small numbers of those eligible to make decisions.
But, such is the momentous and significant nature of the issue at hand, involving redefining the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, that on this occasion a plebiscite is warranted.
Marriage, currently defined as involving the union between a woman and man to the exclusion of all others, and generally for the purpose of procreation, is one of the bedrock institutions of our society.
Changing the definition heralds a profound change in Australia's social fabric and it is only right that the people should decide and not our parliamentary representatives. A true democracy is where the voice of the people is heard.
One of the arguments against a plebiscite, such is the amount of supposed prejudice and phobia against gays and lesbians, is that any public debate will be vitriolic, destructive and harmful.
Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, refers to the possibility of gay/lesbian self-harm and suicide and argues "What we don't want is a divisive debate about people's sexuality".
Such an argument carries little if any weight. Australia is an overwhelmingly tolerant society where public debate and discourse, with the odd exception, are carried out in a rational and civil manner.
Gay and lesbian celebrities and sporting stars no longer feel the need to hide their sexuality, gay pride events like Sydney's Mardi-Gras are no longer controversial and films dealing with diverse forms of gender and sexuality like Brokeback Mountain, the Danish Girl and Carol are now mainstream.
In fact, as proven by the anti-discrimination case in Tasmania where Archbishop Porteous is being attacked for distributing the pastoral letter Don't Mess With Marriage to Catholic schools, it is those arguing in favour of the traditional definition of marriage who have most to fear.
Another argument against a plebiscite is that the exercise will cost approximately $158 million – given that there are more than 16.4 million eligible voters across Australia I'd argue it is a small price to pay per head to see popular sovereignty in action.
Dr Kevin Donnelly is a Senior Research Fellow at the Australian Catholic University and Director of Education Standards Institute.
