The Minefield

In modern democracies, the people are more interested in registering their discontent than giving politicians a clear mandate. Are we now living in an age of negative politics?

Political philosophy has traditionally been concerned with the question of democratic legitimacy – the process by which the people confer the right to govern onto political representatives. But with the rise of protest politics on the left and right alike, the people often seem more interested in constraining political power, blocking legislation and deselecting governments, than they are in giving politicians a clear mandate. Is this a permanent shift in the nature of democratic politics?

Is it still possible for economics to serve the interests of the people? Or have decades of unrestrained capitalism eroded the very democratic virtues we need to live peaceably and well?

Democracy has always had a tense relationship with the market. From Aristotle to John Maynard Keynes, it has been acknowledged that economics cannot be an end in itself, but must be embedded within social obligations and forms of mutual solidarity. With these bonds fraying and global capitalism increasingly serving its own ends, must democracy be the victim of the prosperity of the few?

Is political journalism a purely oppositional force, or do journalism and politics both represent vocations that should pursue some vision of good society?

Political journalism today presents as a purely oppositional profession that needn’t stand for anything in its own right.

From Vietnam to Tunisia and Tibet, self-immolation has been used as a means of political protest. Now it is also occurring at the Nauru detention centre.  But will the shock of these events translate to action?  Or have we simply accepted the human collateral of Australia’s official policy of deterrence?

Two attempted self-immolations at the Nauru detention centre in the past week have left a 23-year-old Iranian man dead and a 21-year-old Somali woman in a critical condition.

Can modern democracies retain their political identities, without sacrificing their commitment to inclusiveness?

Modern democracies claim to be inclusive and non-discriminatory. And yet the tragic story of modern democracy has been the rise of systematic and sometimes violent exclusion of certain groups deemed to be threats to a common political identity. Can democracy live up to its creed, without losing the strong sense of political identity on which it depends?