The Voice is Authoritarian, Not Democratic By James Reed

This is the position of Salvatore Babones in “Democracy, Liberal Authoritarianism and the Voice,” Quadrant Special Digital Edition, August 2023. After a long argument about political theory and Trump, he says some very useful things for activists opposing the Voice as the Voice is supposed to, by definition, give a “voice” to indigenous people who at present do not have a “voice,” but  will not, being merely a road show for the elites:

https://quadrant.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Quadrant-202308-Aug-Online-PEindex-4-1.pdf

“It is an absolute misnomer acceptable for use only by activists, politicians and lawyers to call the proposed consultation mechanism for indigenous consultation an “Indigenous Voice”, since it will not, in fact, give indigenous Australians a voice. In the spirit of present-day liberal double-speak, it will actually suppress the voices of the vast majority of indigenous Australians. Instead of holding an equal Jack’s-as-good-as-his-master share in advising on policies for indigenous Australia, ordinary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will be locked out of these debates. The Voice might deliver “reconciliation” between elite indigenous activists and elite white Australia, but it would do little to involve non-elite indigenous Australians in the dignity of self-governance. It would do absolutely nothing to “close the gap”. Instead of embracing democracy, the indigenous Voice proposed by the National Co-Design Group and endorsed by Prime Minister Albanese and the “Yes” campaign is designed to be nakedly authoritarian. It would draw its legitimacy from the consensus of establishment institutions, not the consent of the governed. It would have indigenous Australians be spoken for and spoken to, but it would not allow them to speak. Individual indigenous Australians would not have the ability to object to positions taken by the Voice within the Voice system; they would not have access to mechanisms for dissent; none would, to use the language of the law, have “standing” to challenge the Voice. The “No” campaign seems to be focused mainly on the divisiveness of inserting a race-based institution into the Australian Constitution. It should be more concerned with the criminality of disenfranchising Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens.”

That would seem to be an excellent reason for indigenous Australians to oppose the Voice. It will do nothing for the vast majority outside of the elite New Class.