Australian Labor and the Socialist Tradition

Amidst the turmoil of the so‐called ‘death of socialism’, both in Australia and elsewhere, there has been renewed debate about what socialism should be taken to mean. This paper attempts to come to terms with the competing claims about, in particular, socialism within the Australian Labor Party and, in general, how better to understand the meaning of socialism. A comparison and contrast between the first principles of liberalism and socialism helps to illuminate some of the inadequacies of Marxist criticisms of parliamentary Labor. In addition, the argument is made that if we are willing to give greater emphasis to questions of means and ends, socialism can be seen to be part of Labor's historic mission. Far from being a defence of the Hawke administration, however, the case is made that there has been, under Hawke, a fundamental break with the democratic socialist tradition; that the difference is in kind, not degree.     

Does compulsory voting violate a right not to vote?

It is sometimes claimed that compulsory voting violates a particular right not to vote. For some, this assumed right is as fundamental as the right to vote. The existence of such a right, however, has attracted little sustained scholarly attention. This article explores from a political theory perspective whether the alleged ‘right not to vote’ is deserving the same legal and moral protection as the right to vote. I argue on two broad grounds that it is not. First, not all rights are capable of being legally waived and voting is one of them. Second, voting is a right but it is also a duty; it is a duty-right. Therefore, even though many people do fail to vote, doing so does not seem to constitute the exercise of any particular right, nor should it be legally recognised as such.

有人认为强制性投票侵犯了不投票的权利。对于很多人来说,不投票的权利跟投票的权利同等重要。不过这种权利却未得到学术界的持续关注。本文从政治学的角度探讨了所谓的“不投票权”是否应像投票权一样享有法律上和道德上的保护。笔者基于更宽泛的理由认为不应当。首先,并非所有权利都是可以在法律上免除的,投票权即是。其次,投票是权利,也是义务;是权利—义务。所以,尽管许多人没有投票,但这并不构成某种权利,法律上也不应被视作权利。