In recent years a growing number of Australians have lost confidence in their system of governance, but few journalists and political theory academics have suggested alternatives. If Australia is to improve its governance system and its democracy, it should look to European alternatives.

The Australian system of governance is usually described as “Westminster”. This includes a number of organisational characteristics an important one of which is the combination of Government and Legislature in one chamber with Ministers being full members of it. There are essentially two major parties with one of them being the Government party, the other the Official Opposition. In addition, the British still have a First Past The Post electoral system while Australia uses the Single Transferable Vote system also based on Single Member Districts but providing more choice. There are other differences between the UK system and Australian practices, but these will not be discussed here.

In recent years a growing number Australians have lost confidence in their system of governance, but few journalists and political theory academics have suggested alternatives. There is a fairly widespread popular view that the only alternative is the US Presidential system, but this is incorrect. In this paper I refer to the tripartite system in particular put forward by the French theorist Montesquieu. Montesquieu used the phrase “Trias Politicas” to indicate the desired relationship and distribution of power and functions between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary (Spirit of Law, 1748). The motivation of the theorist then was clearly to curb the centralisation of power in the monarchy. His example was the Constitution of the........

© Pearls and Irritations