The call to democracy has also been reinforced with ABC's Q&A. The self-proclaiming "democracy in action" has brought discussion on relevant issues from the sphere of journalists down to the public – anyone can be in the audience and anyone can ask questions. The panel is regularly a selection of people from different social and political positions with the aim "to thrash out the hot issues of the week" and a lively debate ensues.
For the most part Q&A has succeeded in this democratic discussion, putting the debate into the hands of everyday Australians. It has encouraged the public to have, hold to, and defend personal opinions on a variety of topics. But in the pursuit of open discourse, it hasn't always proved to be a successful format.
Recently on the show, Anglican Arch Bishop Peter Jensen was invited to speak, as one of five panelists, on the topics of asylum seekers, refugees and marriage vows and so on. The show had its usual honesty, directness and varying insights, with pace and volume.
But over the course of the show there was a transition. The initial topics were heated enough and were presented in the appropriate light of seriousness and concern. However, for the second half of the show the focus of conversation seemed to change from a discussion of assorted perspectives to be a sort of Peter Jensen versus The World. Facts seem to be replaced by opinion.
When it came to the beliefs and decisions of the Anglican Church there was a very strange intolerance. Lead by the volume of Catherine Deveny the democratic discussion waned. Soon the audience's flat disagreement was given voice by Tony Jones even at times interrupting Peter Jensen mid-response.
Deveny's tongue in cheek description that she doesn't tolerate intolerance got a small laugh but largely the contradiction was ignored. While it was presented light heartedly and in her typical 'one liner' fashion the truth of what she said deserved its own discussion on the show.
I don't have concerns about the democracy of our country being under threat and I don't shy away from hearing a variety of perspectives on the issues. But I do have a real apprehension that serious issues in our country will be settled by a noisy expression of personal opinions. The paradox of not tolerating intolerance is the symptom of a shift away from views that can be held based on some external code of belief and towards a childish pursuit of the desires of all people. The hostility was a vague "no restrictions on anyone" policy dressed up in a debate on gender and sexuality, which brought to mind the quote:
"you're saying you don't have an opinion and that that is the best way to be, but if that were the case you wouldn't say anything at all - your opinion is that people with opinions are wrong"
The only threat I can see to the future of our democracy is if we move from tolerating voices in the public discussion who maintain a ideology more complex than 'whatever anyone wants is ok'. Irrespective of the platform on which this debate takes place, it is noisy immaturity that cannot tolerate limits, order, and the relegation of want.
Sam Manchester is a graduate from The University of Sydney, currently studying theology.
Sam's archive of articles may be viewed at www.pressserviceinternational.org/sam-manchester.html