Between state, local and federal elections, it seems that someone is always campaigning about something in Australia.  Whilst this means that we are nominally supposed to get representation based upon our geographical area, this does not seem to happen in practice.  Instead what we get is a government that is ruled by one authorative leader, who places their vision into all policy that is administered and how the executive and legislative branches of the government operate. 

I am not the biggest advocate of a complete separation of power, and provided there is representative responsibility then the system seems to work quite well.

One of the problems that I have seen lately is that not all leaders stay for the full term, when there is nothing left to achieve, like an elite athlete retiring after they have all the records then there is a void.  Other leadership transitions can occur through party room battles, death, illness or similar; the fact is that a leader that did not face the election is the leader of the government.  This individual then sets their own policies, agendas and ideas and starts to put them into motion. 

This assumption of power is not a problem if one assumes that each politician is only there to look after their own electorates, and because of this then if the majority of electorates support the new leader then everything is all good.  If however you see the government as being affirmed and the representatives are elected on a geographical area only for convenience of getting people to form the government and as a pool of ministers for the duly elected government.  where this view is taken then the leader is elected by proxy by the people at the previous election, and when they go, then there is a leader that the general populous did not agree upon.

I prefer the latter view, that the government, and their leader are elected by the people, regardless of the name on the voting card, they are voting for the leader.  This is evident as all the candidates have their photos with the leader on their how to vote cards and it is the leader who sets the policies and how they should campaign.  Therefore I feel that the next leader who takes over should hold an election as soon as practicable, continuing with the previous leader’s policies.  Anything else feels that they have subverted the mandate given by the people and feels undemocratic.

Why should there be a leader who the electorate does not know, implementing policies that they do not necessarily agree with? If they were that they were representing the wishes of the people then they should not have a problem submitting the scrutiny of the people via an election.  If they are not confident and are holding onto power because it has been won, not at the ballot box but by inferior means then they have no place being in government and should have a new election anyway.

Let me know what you think, is it fair that a new leader can lead without the will of the people behind them, or is this just democracy at work?