top of page
lydiajulian1

Is democracy in or out?

Before we know it the summer season of tennis will begin in Australia. Both Djokovic and Kyrgios, along with the World’s No.1 female player, Sabalenka, have announced their intention to play in the Brisbane International commencing on 5th January. At least we know Brisbane will have a venue ready for that event. None of us are sure that will be the case when the tropical city hosts the Summer Olympics of 2032.


A contemporary feature of the tennis world is the crowd averting their eyes from the court to the screens perched above when a line call is challenged. Always there are melodramatic “oohs and aahs” as the screen displays the trajectory of the ball before it conclusively lands either in or out. Electronic line call technology gives us many things: Certainty; Predictability; Consistency; and  Fairness.


These are the qualities that are often trumpeted as the universal gifts of democracy.


After the last few days, I am not so sure we can be that certain.


South Korea, a vital democracy in the Asian region if ever there was one, is thrown into chaos by a President’s decision to impose martial law. The will of the people triumphantly overcame the edict and the possibility of a military coup. How quickly predictability can become pandemonium.



Overnight an unholy alliance of Left and Far Right parties in France, proving once again that the enemy of one’s enemy is one’s friend, ousted the Macron backed centrist Barnier government through a vote of No-Confidence.  The government has had the shortest tenure of any in France’s Fifth Republic. It was perhaps not surprising given the result of France’s summer elections which led to a hung parliament.



For the French President, a week that was meant to end with the celebration of the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral now sees him struggling to fill a political vacuum and restore public confidence in  parliamentary process. Uncertainty and extremism have become a consistent theme of French politics. Macron, whose centrist party promised to heal the gridlock between Left and Right, has overseen a haemorrhage of the body politic.


The recent decision of the International Criminal Court to issue warrants against Israel’s Prime Minister and former Defence Minister for allegedly committing war crimes in the Gaza has left many bemused.  One wonders how the ICC would expect any democratic nation to react to a brazen and murderous unprovoked terrorist attack on its territory, such as that committed by Hamas in October 2023. In all fairness, is Israel being judged by standards that are inherently unreasonable, if not prejudicial?



When electronic line technology operates, it decides whether a ball lands within the borders of the court.  The Middle East crisis is one of borders: which nations are entitled to them and what their dimensions should be. The Australian government seems no longer able to side on the democratic side of the border wars with its decision to support a United Nations resolution to support the creation of a Palestinian state. Supporting the existence of a Palestinian State, without any guarantees that advocates of the Palestinian cause will support the right of Israel to exist is naïve cowardice at its worst.  


The border wars remain unresolved in the Ukraine, but Putin has still found time in recent days to support Syria’s bloodthirsty Assad regime against civil uprisings.   There is a remarkable lack of ICC handwringing and United Nations resolutions about developments in that country.  Yet it is Israel, a nation that would fit five times into Australia’s smallest mainland state of Victoria, and  which is the only democratic state in the Middle East, that is the pariah du jour.


To paraphrase President Kennedy’s famous speech in Berlin, Israel as a democratic country, like the former West Berlin,  is a beacon of  freedom , whose life “is part of the main.”  To assail Israel, whilst ignoring the brutally undemocratic forces that would have it destroyed, along with other democratic states, is beyond bizarre.  To think that this attitude has become the dogmatic dogma of so many is bewildering.


Democracy not only faces existential threats from without, but also from within. President Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter, from convictions for drug and firearm offences is an incredulous and damaging as the pusillanimous posturing of the ICC and the United Nations.



Forgive me for thinking that there was a scintilla of a chance that Trump and Biden could restore some faith in the democratic process with an orderly transition of power. No scandals. No rancorous division ? No chance!


Just as Gerald Ford did with his pardon of Richard Nixon from any prosecutions arising from crimes arising out of the Watergate affair, Biden has soured public faith in democracy.  The basic and binding principle of the rule of law that no citizen is above the law has been smashed by Biden, who promised that he would never exercise clemency in favour of his son. Whilst we know that Biden can be forgiven for not remembering much, his nepotistic indulgence borders on the nefarious.


Rank politics that destroys philosophical principles is once again triumphant. All that is left is for Trump to pardon himself after taking office! What has happened to the famous separation of powers doctrine that sought to guarantee the independence of the courts and ensure that no citizen is immune from prosecution ? Biden and Trump clearly see their power and privileges as more important than any notion of public responsibility.  Caesar’s wife and other public figures had to be “beyond reproach” to  keep public faith in the officers of the Roman Republic. Biden’s son has been protected at a terrible cost to the American Republic.


Tennis spectators can also be forgiven for wondering whether the rules governing drug testing are being democratically applied. Iga Swiatek, the world’s former No.1, was given a one month ban that was announced after it started, for use of a banned substance on the basis that it could not have enhanced her performance. Meanwhile Jannik Sinner awaits the outcome of the appeal by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) against the decision of the International Tennis Integrity Agency to exonerate him from the use of a prohibited substance on the basis that Sinner had not shown any “fault or negligence.” For WADA, it is a case of strict liability. Use the substance and you are culpable.


So, the summer of tennis begins with clouds of controversy swirling around two of the current best. More ominous are the metaphorical thunderstorms rattling the democratic culture and climates of many states.

                                                                          ****

VALE NEALE FRASER

One tennis player who hit the ball in far more than out was Australia’s Neale Fraser, who passed away this week aged 91.



Only two people can say they beat Rod Laver in a Wimbledon final. Neale Fraser is one of them. The Wimbledon champion of 1960, he was also the United States champion in 1959 and 1960, again beating Laver in the final in 1960.


In both years he won the ‘Triple Crown’ of titles- Singles, Doubles (with Roy Emerson) and Mixed (with Margaret Osborne). No man has achieved that feat since! Neale was runner-up at the Australian Open on three occasions: 1957, 1959 and 1960. Overall, he won 19 Grand Slam titles.


He was also famous for being Australia’s Davis Cup Captain for a record 24 years from 1970-1993, leading Australia to victories in 1973, 1977, 1983 and 1986. 

 


Australia’s victory at Kooyong in 1983 with Pat Cash triumphant in the deciding match gave tennis one of its most famous images! Neale Fraser’s arm raised in salute is on the right of the picture!




 

 

 

 

 

76 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page