|
July 19, 2009
Jack Waterford's comments on the limits of executive government at the Canberra Times are interesting in the light of this argument about authoritarian capitalism.He says that there are those including me who:
would like to see some circumscription of a constantly expanding range of executive power as against the parliament. One might argue that parliament is the author of its own misfortunes in this regard, given that it has been prepared to hand over some of its most important functions to ministers, and to rubber-stamp whatever they do. Yet one might have expected that the judiciary, as the third arm of constitutional government, might be a little more willing to put some limits on the incestuous affair, if only on behalf of a citizenry increasingly being trampled by the descent into discretion, arbitrary power, and an effective power of dispensation from the rule of law.
Federalism, under the Australian Constitution, implies the distribution of powers between Commonwealth and States and between the three branches of government. That, in turn, implies limits on executive government.
There needs to be limits on executive power othrwise we are drifting towards authoritarian capitalism behind the veil of 'emergencies', 'crises', 'dangers' and 'intense difficulties', of 'scourges' and other problems that relate to things as diverse as terrorism, water shortages, drug abuse, child abuse, poverty, pandemics, obesity, and global warming, as well as global financial affairs and which require, so the public is endlessly told,that 'wars' must be waged, 'campaigns' conducted, 'strategies' devised and 'battles' fought.
|
How can we limit executive power while we have a system with such inter-party discipline? I fear that in practice, limiting executive power from gathering around the Prime Minister's office is as pointless as resisting gravity.