Democracy! What is it? Lincoln defined it as "The People", all of us miniscule beings, defining our destiny.

Democracy does have a variety of shades of grey (bet the tags don't work!!!).

I know that the administration of 'Democracy' in my country as against the USA has some huge differences. Then, certainly we will find that all nations purporting to 'democracy' will have their own 'flavour' as to how it looks/feels/etc for its people.

I have no arguement with that, but today I heard a political analyst make a comment in the vein of:
"We democratically elect our leaders for a period of X years."
PLEASE absorb that point.

His next comment was:
"And then, up to the next election we live in (or are bound to)
a psuedo-dictatorship!"

Fair comment?
In my country there are certain mechanisms for which we have recourse
over some issues, but ... can a major community block of many
thousands/millions of people override an elected Legislative forum
of some 100, 500 representatives (depends on your "democracy's"
constitution)?
It matters little what the winners said as platform policies; once they
have the numbers, they can implement almost anything. The only
safeguard to this that they have to face the whole body of the people
somewhere in the short term future.
In the USA there exists a process to "Impeach the President"; applies to
some other public officials I think. [Americans will clarify that for
us.]

QU: Do any of our democracies allow
a public process [italics intended] to bring about the early
decline of a government which can be shown to be in breach of its
stated adgenda?

Ans: Probably "No". Constitutions were drafted in a period when "all could see the common good".

No dispute. Basically those constitutions are rock solid, but ...

... but ..

I'm sure there are many who'd like to guide me down "party lines". Then there are those who will have a different perspective.

I just hate the thought that, as a member of a democratic society, at the last election, I actually agreed to "a form of dictatorship"!!

Well, right now and for the last 1.5 years, Canada has a closer approximation to a government of the people than your indication of the government of your Country. This is because the elected government holds less than half the seats in the house - any policy or action brought up for which the minority governement cannot get enough support for from the other parties to receive a majority vote would result in a "vote of non-confidence", automatically forcing an election. This actually happened sometime late last year (the previous national elections were no more than 1 year ago) and we just had new elections 2 weeks ago (we got a new (by the way - boo!), but still minority, government). So this system works to prevent the head party from introducing items which could be unfavorable, as this will essentially allow their opposition a chance to get power - and the opposition will have a very relevant item for their platform in the item which was defeated.

In absence of a minority government (i.e. where the leading party has not only more seats than any other party, but more seats than all other parties combines), the only real thing preventing parties/candidates from abusing their power(s) is the long term health of their parties. As elections in democratic countries are (to my knowledge) set to occur at some specified minimum frequecy (in Canada it is 5 years, I believe in the states it is 4 years), this (releatively) short time doesn't allow the government to make too much of a mess of things.

Now, you must consider that a political party will generally act in its own best interest. In Canada, the head of state (Prime Minister) is simply the leader of the party which holds the most seats in the house (or in rare cases, the leader of the coalition which holds the most seats, but thats getting a little too far down into the process). So if the Prime Minister goes off and does things that aren't in line with the party platform, then they, within the party and without need for a national election, may replace the Prime Minister. This process also happened recently here as the transition between Jean Cretien and Paul Martin (c. 2002) when Mr. Cretien was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I would expect that other countries have their governmental systems set up with some similar level of check&balance.

But to the core of your "question" (not really a question I don't think), there is very little if anything that can be done to enforce a parties/candidates specific election promises after election. However, the basis upon which a democracy is founded is the common good - if it can be shown that the overwhelming majority do not support some major decision of the parliament, then action could be taken. For example, if Canada's government decided to go to war against Australia, I'm sure that as this would be opposed by essentially everybody (especially those males who've heard of Elle MacPherson!), the process would be stopped, somehow, within the bounds of our system. You'll have to get someone with actual political knowledge to explain the specific process, and I'm sure that each contry would follow a different path so how this kind of thing would be overturned in Canadfa may (or may not) differ greatly from the process followed in Mexico, or France, or New Zealand etc.

This post is too long to proof read :(

Cory, I assume that the Canadian Parliamentary system is modelled on the Westminster System as is the Australian one.

What Vernon is pointing out here is couched in something which Cory discussed. At present the Government (as a coalition) has a majority in both houses and has a pretty 'free reign' to do as it wishes.

Yes our (Canadian) parliament system is based on the the same principles as the Australian system. There is, according to the all-knowing CBC (Canada free-domain news and broadcasting group), still more than 40% support for the system while a recent referendum only narrowly missed changing the Australians system away from this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/bigpicture/queen/con_monarchies.html

I would love to come visit you guys some day as the winters here (except this one which has been incredibly nice) are a little much for me. Any work for Transportation Engineers there by chance?

Can't think of any thing immediate where you might get appropriate info expect possibly the Australian Embassy or similar diplomatic agency.

I thin democracy needs to be redifined cos it has only brought about leaders who can take decision onbehalf of a nation with their selfish intent.

Democarcy needs to be defined with the country and the nature of the people in qustion,democracy to a continent like Africa is just like putting bones in the mouth of a dog and wanting a choice.