Open ended Questions
Was reading the Sunday Telegraph last night and there was an article on Howard's wants for the way Australian history is taught in schools.
Howard wants history to be taught sequentially , as a coherent narrative. It seems history is currently been taught as a series of analysis based approached to subjects such as Society and enviroment. The Howard government is now threatening to cut $33 billion, in funding and GST, over the next four years to states that do not comply to his vision.
Now I believe that history should be taught as both. You need a "narrative" structure to history (on this date this happened, then this happened, then this etc) but such a structure is useless unless you also focus on subjects such as society and enviroment etc (On this date this happen, then this and that's why the federal capital is in the middle of a sheep pasture etc)
Of course Howard and his federal education minister, Julie Bishop, aren't being completely draconian about it. They endorse a "open ended question" approach to history:
Because I certainly haven't seen it yet.
The Oxford dictionary defines liberal as being : 1) given or giving freely, generous, not sparing of, abundant; open minded, unprejudiced; directed to general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical 2) holder of liberal views (holding humane views not confinded to a poliical party).
So we're not reliant on one source, dictionary.com defines liberal as :
Do any of these definations of liberal fit the Australian political structure? A previous post on this blog concerned gay marriages and the governments refusal to give these people the same rights as hetrosexuals. Is this "unprejudiced"? Is the government "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."? One of Howard's arguments aganist gay marriage is "Society isn't ready for it." Is that a "general broadening of the mind?"
The federal government is holding state governments to ransom on a daily basis. Not just education, they threaten to withhold funding if state government's didn't drop state taxes not that long ago. There was the thing over the flags at school, threaten to withhold funding if they didn't fly the Australian flag. Then there was the report cards (okay an education thing). The Howard government wanted reports cards to be in "plain" english (the A to F grading system rather then the "Achieved expected outcomes" to "excelled beyond expected outcomes" [or whatever they called it] that was in place). Again, threats to funding were made (ironically in the "plain" english system "C" means "Achieved expected outcomes" or "average" so what's the difference?). They threaten to withhold funds from South Australia over the Vietnamn vetrans grave if they flew the South Vietnamn flag - which those soldiers fought and died for (as well as the Australian flag), though SA funded the graves through public donations so the government was forced to back down. Is this "giving freely"?
Federal:- Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government. Federal voters = state voters.
So if federal tax payers also vote for state governments then, they already have a say!
Unless of course Julie Bishop means that voters in, say NSW, have a right to say how the Queensland government spends it's money, or voters in Tasmania can dicate terms to the South Australian government.
So I'll end now with an open question, "When did we become a liberal democracy?"
Howard wants history to be taught sequentially , as a coherent narrative. It seems history is currently been taught as a series of analysis based approached to subjects such as Society and enviroment. The Howard government is now threatening to cut $33 billion, in funding and GST, over the next four years to states that do not comply to his vision.
Now I believe that history should be taught as both. You need a "narrative" structure to history (on this date this happened, then this happened, then this etc) but such a structure is useless unless you also focus on subjects such as society and enviroment etc (On this date this happen, then this and that's why the federal capital is in the middle of a sheep pasture etc)
Of course Howard and his federal education minister, Julie Bishop, aren't being completely draconian about it. They endorse a "open ended question" approach to history:
"I think open ended questions are a very good idea, such as: how did we become a liberal democracy?" - Julie BishopI'm sorry. I think the question should be "When did we BECOME a liberal democracy?"
Because I certainly haven't seen it yet.
The Oxford dictionary defines liberal as being : 1) given or giving freely, generous, not sparing of, abundant; open minded, unprejudiced; directed to general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical 2) holder of liberal views (holding humane views not confinded to a poliical party).
So we're not reliant on one source, dictionary.com defines liberal as :
- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
- Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
- Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
- Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
- Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
- Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
- Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
- Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
- Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
Do any of these definations of liberal fit the Australian political structure? A previous post on this blog concerned gay marriages and the governments refusal to give these people the same rights as hetrosexuals. Is this "unprejudiced"? Is the government "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry."? One of Howard's arguments aganist gay marriage is "Society isn't ready for it." Is that a "general broadening of the mind?"
The federal government is holding state governments to ransom on a daily basis. Not just education, they threaten to withhold funding if state government's didn't drop state taxes not that long ago. There was the thing over the flags at school, threaten to withhold funding if they didn't fly the Australian flag. Then there was the report cards (okay an education thing). The Howard government wanted reports cards to be in "plain" english (the A to F grading system rather then the "Achieved expected outcomes" to "excelled beyond expected outcomes" [or whatever they called it] that was in place). Again, threats to funding were made (ironically in the "plain" english system "C" means "Achieved expected outcomes" or "average" so what's the difference?). They threaten to withhold funds from South Australia over the Vietnamn vetrans grave if they flew the South Vietnamn flag - which those soldiers fought and died for (as well as the Australian flag), though SA funded the graves through public donations so the government was forced to back down. Is this "giving freely"?
"If the States want to recieve federal funding, as well as the GST for education, they have to take responability for the outcomes and contentsDemocracy:- Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. Federal tax payers = federal voters. Okay, so the federal government represents federal voters.
of their courses... ...It is wrong to say that State governments are the only ones who have a say about outcomes in schools. Federal tax payers have a say, as well" - Julie Bishop
Federal:- Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government. Federal voters = state voters.
So if federal tax payers also vote for state governments then, they already have a say!
Unless of course Julie Bishop means that voters in, say NSW, have a right to say how the Queensland government spends it's money, or voters in Tasmania can dicate terms to the South Australian government.
So I'll end now with an open question, "When did we become a liberal democracy?"
posted by Renegade79 at 7:35 pm
9 Comments:
Well, not to be overly pedantic, but '...[the] term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that the initial framework for modern liberal democracy was created during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty. They emphasized the right of the individual to have immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority. At present, there are numerous different political ideologies that support liberal democracy. Examples include conservatism, Christian Democracy, social democracy and some forms of socialism.'
(Cut straight from Wikipedia)
But the age of enlightenment refers to 18th century social revolutions in Europe. Art was redefined, church and state seperated, science made it's nig star apearence after understuding with alchemy, the Amercian revolution and the French revolution.
Now, if I wanted to be pedantic then I could point out that a open ended question such as "How did we became a liberal democracy" still can not be answered in a subject concerning solely Australian history. They would need to study European history to fully appreicate the question.
Now the philosophers who advocated liberty penned works such as the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes which talk about Natural rights - universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of the world, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. Other philosophers who wrote bout Natural rights were John Locke and Issac Newton.
Now while a lot of governments claim to use liberalism as their frame work, no government (which the possiable exception of Swizerland) has been a liberal democracy in anything but name only.
The American revolution happened in the name of liberalism and the constituion was penned to make Amercia a "liberal democracy" Then kept slaves until the civil war in the 19th Century, not to mention pushing the natives off their land, forcing to become christians and that thing with the blankets.
England also embraced "liberal democracy" and maintained a monarchy (powerless in all but name, but still a monarchy) and the French, well the French are still the French.
Australia itself has treated it's native population horrendously, the white Australia policy is still fresh in people's mind and the current treatment of Homosexuals, well I mention that in the blog.
So I will grant you that these governments claim to be "liberal democracy" as they use liberalism as a "frame work" But unless they embrace the ideal of liberalism then they are "liberal democracy in name only"
So my orginal question stands, based on the founding princples of liberalism.
Reference source - wikipedia
But you are also neglecting one thing with all your definitions, Nat. "Liberal Democracy" is a name/term, not simply two words you can define seperatly.
Some definitions of "Liberal Democracy":
1. A system of government characterized by universal adult suffrage (check), political equality (check = one person, one vote), majority rule (check, technically its a majority of majorities) and constitutionalism (check).
2. Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy (check) where elected representatives (check) that hold the decision power are moderated by a constitution (check) that emphasizes protecting individual liberties (note 'emphasises, not guarentees') and the rights of minorities in society (also called constitutional liberalism), such as freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy, as well as equality before the law and due process under the rule of law, etc. (check, even if they are not written down, they are conventions within our system of government)
Have to go, server is rebooting...
Server back up, part 2.
If you go for absolute meanings then nothing will ever qualify as a 'Liberal Democracy' because we live in a non-perfect non-absolute world, and I kinda like it that way.
But compare Australia to the world nation average, we are a Liberal Democracy, way above, for example, North Korea.
I'm gonna throw in with Lindsay here. We are a pretty liberal democracy when you take into account what some (you might argue most) other nations have.
That said, we're not perfect. Certain elements of society are treated worse than others. Not in an obvious sense like sanctioned bigotry but in far more underhanded ways.
So i agree with both of you.
Also,
What the hell are you reading the telegraph for!
Might as well start a debate over Today Tonight. They've already conceded any sort of moral ground so any victory is pretty damn redundant.
Because when you're bored Reg, you will read anything
Fair point.
My feeling on the "liberal democracy" mentioned by Julie Bishop is that it is the Liberal's democracy. Meaning that it would be a concervative and backward (listening to Howard on most given sujects)democracy. I believe that a democracy is one where all groups are listened to and included as much as possible, but this "Liberal Democracy" is one one where some "minority groups" (not tolerated by the narrow minded christian thinking people), are listened to politely then told to 'run along while the adults sit down and think of real things'. The two biggest of these groups are continually mentioned in this blog.
And so endth the rant
Post a Comment
<< Home