There are two crises afflicting late-stage democracy - one, empirical, and the other, "umpirical" - a term I have taken the liberty of inventing for this purpose.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

Together, their effect could be diabolical.

Crucial to legitimate government in systems like ours is the acceptance that facts are the foundation of any serious public decision-making.

Yet there is a strong sense that this presumption is itself succumbing to the burden of growing tribalism, culture wars and easily orchestrated mass-argumentation.

The dramatic flipping of majority public support for the Voice referendum in 2023 is but one example. The findings of opinion polls currently pumping One Nation's tyres, might be another.

Also foundational is "umpirical" confidence. A belief that whatever the differences over policy, the arena and terms of competition are not themselves up for grabs.

This is the precept that ultimately, the people, via established norms and structures, are the umpire. Unique to institutional democracy, the umpirical function allows a public verdict on governing performance to be expressed by voters directly via regular elections, and/or to be moderated through parliament and the courts in the meantime.

In the digital age, neither of these pillars is standing as straight as they used to. Now, most anyone can participate quickly and unfiltered in the public debate. Governments, alternative parties of government, and mainstream media are losing the upper hand.

Initially, the communications miracle of social media was imagined as hyper-democratic. In practice, it has exacerbated conflict and elevated political argument from being a means to being an end.

There is a sense that elections no longer settle questions in a polity continually at war.

Empirical evidence, or facts, jostle........

© The Examiner