Australia has just taken part in a Federal election, called relatively hastily after the sacking of the previously elected Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, by the governing Australian Labor Party caucus. The Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, inherited the position of Prime Minister and in doing so became the first female leader of Australia.

*“The results of the election held on Saturday, 21 August 2010, were interesting from the point of view of the survival of our two-party `Westminster’ system of Democracy,”* says engineer Mr Scott Wilkie, speaking on behalf of the Humanist Movement (no relation of elected independent candidate Andrew Wilkie) as a New Humanist Activist in Sydney, Australia.

*“Neither of the two major parties polled a majority in the House of Representatives for an outright win, with four independents retaining and taking seats. It appears Labor will take the win by no more than two seats and will likely have enough of the four Independents ‘on side’ to form a Minority Government.”*

The basic reason for this indecision was a lack of perceived difference in what was on offer from the `big two’ continued Scott Wilkie.

“Both the Liberal Coalition – traditionally our ‘right wingers’ and the Labor Party – our supposed ‘Lefties’ – have become, since the 1980s, nothing much more than ‘administrators’ and moderators of the ‘economic rationality’ that has taken over the Western World. It’s the incumbent government’s capacity to deal with corporate idealism and financial fundamentalism that has become the measure of success – and who can convince who regarding the right method?

The ‘third force’, the Australian Greens, continue to grow, having gained their first seat in the House of Representatives. They already hold significant power in the Upper House or Senate.

*“Environmental issues based, The Greens present worthwhile moderation, and they are certainly holding a position further to the Left than the Australian Labor Party,” notes Scott Wilkie. “I have concern regarding their lack of commitment to any idealism beyond the quasi socialist, and their willingness to engage in ‘preference deals’ with the two larger Parties. They seemingly need to establish their position more clearly in the political landscape for people to make educated decisions regarding what’s on offer. That is their major flaw.”*

All of the above is in reality just more of the ‘same old, same old’. There have been far more difficult situations emerge in the 109 years since the Federation of the Australian States. One thing is clear at this moment. It’s not the political system (Westminster System) that is at fault, it is the participants and how they gain the resources to conduct an effective campaign in the ‘money wins’ system that is Capitalism.

*“All this makes me think about, and ask, what an incumbent ‘Humanist Party’ Government would do regarding Political Structure. In a sense it is probably an irrelevant question relative to current western governance, as I think the mind set of the average Western person would have to change considerably before the Humanist Party was in power in Australia, for example. But we don’t get anywhere without the ‘images’ of what could be, and it’s not too early, or too late, to consider what a Humanist Government would be, and do.”*

Scott Wilkie sees a Humanist Government as one that is constantly dynamic and evolving, with the ultimate purpose of making itself irrelevant in the way we understand conventional Government today…

Scott Wilkie is a political observer, technologist and writer. Scott was a core member of the Humanist Party of Australia which was active during the 1980s.