By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a notable turn of events, Gareth Ward, a convicted rapist and independent member of the New South Wales parliament, resigned from his seat moments before a scheduled vote to expel him. Despite being found guilty of sex crimes against two young men, Ward had initially refused to resign and unsuccessfully fought legal battles to avoid expulsion. The former minister faces sentencing in September and could have received a prison term of up to 14 years. His resignation prevented him from becoming the first lawmaker expelled from the lower house in over a century.
Read the original article here
The matter of the Australian lawmaker, recently convicted of rape, who resigned moments before a parliamentary vote to expel him, is a stark illustration of the contrasting approaches to accountability in political systems. The fact that he attempted to prevent the expulsion vote itself highlights a certain defiance, a belief that he shouldn’t face the consequences of his actions. It’s easy to see how the situation provokes frustration, given the inherent unfairness of such a scenario.
One of the key differences between Australia’s system and the United States’ system lies in the mechanics of how elected officials are held accountable. In Australia, this lawmaker faced the immediate consequence of a potential parliamentary expulsion following his conviction, a process much more streamlined and effective than the convoluted methods of impeachment and removal often seen in the US. This swift action, which in this case included a resignation to avoid that vote, is a testament to the structural differences between the two nations.
The presence of compulsory voting in Australia is a significant factor. It ensures a wider participation in the electoral process, which leads to greater representation and perhaps a lower tolerance for extremist views. This broad participation makes it harder for fringe parties to exploit voter apathy and gain disproportionate influence. In the US, the absence of such a system allows for a more vocal minority to potentially sway elections, highlighting a crucial contrast in the electoral landscape.
The Australian system, while not perfect, seems to have an advantage in its capacity to quickly remove an official found guilty of egregious crimes. The fact that the lawmaker was re-elected after being suspended, and while awaiting trial, shows a flaw. However, the subsequent expulsion, or resignation to avoid it, signifies a willingness to act on the findings of the legal system. This contrasts with the situation in the US, where those convicted of heinous acts can still hold positions of power, particularly when they benefit from political allegiances or self-serving constituents.
The dynamics of political parties play a crucial role too. The Australian system appears to have a higher bar for tolerance of criminal behavior within the established parties. The quick expulsion attempts reveal a willingness to enforce a degree of accountability. The cultural attitudes towards individual actions and the broader societal norms, also seem to play a role in the ease with which these events unfold.
In Australia, there are structural features in the electoral system that streamline this process. The system is more designed to get rid of MPs on short notice. Compulsory voting, preferential voting systems, and ease of voting, all play a part in making this relatively simple to do. These features limit the impact of specific ideologies, keeping the extremes out. The system also makes it harder to have extreme parties, using fearmongering tactics.
The comparison with the US system shows the differences in political culture, the ability to swiftly and decisively remove someone, after a conviction. In this context, the Australian system appears more efficient at quickly removing officials. The fact that this lawmaker resigned rather than be expelled from Parliament demonstrates the effectiveness of this process. This is a clear sign of the structural differences between the two countries.
It’s important to note that the Australian system isn’t without its own challenges. The fact that the lawmaker was re-elected after being charged is a concern. The system is better, because there is a more effective political process to deal with a guilty party. The fact that a politician was re-elected after being charged, reveals the underlying issues in any democratic system.
Ultimately, the case of this Australian lawmaker highlights the varying methods of political accountability across different nations. While the US system often faces challenges in removing elected officials, the Australian system appears to provide a more effective framework. The presence of mandatory voting, electoral systems, and cultural norms, all contribute to a more straightforward approach to justice.