The debate surrounding the rights of territories within Australia is not primarily about population size but about constitutional rights - the two territories just happen to be the smallest of the eight state and territory jurisdictions. It is true that, in discussion of future statehood, population size is sometimes given as a reason to delay it until the territories are bigger and able to support state democratic infrastructure. But the day will eventually come when both the territories will be bigger than the smallest state, Tasmania, because they are growing more quickly. Tasmania's current population (541, 000) now compares with the ACT (431,000) and the Northern Territory (247,000).

It is easy for big-state chauvinists to sneer at the territories for being too small. Critics can laugh, for instance, about the tiny electorates, by population, in the NT, or joke about the ACT government being just a local council. But they are cheap jibes made at easy targets. When these jibes are made in the context of controversy about a deeply felt emotional issue, they serve no useful purpose. They just prove that silly things are said in the middle of heated arguments and may come to be regretted.

Professor Greg Craven, former vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, describes the territories as micro-jurisdictions, and compares the ACT to the Blacktown local government area in Sydney. He goes on to argue that on an issue like euthanasia it would not be acceptable for Blacktown to be making such rules for its community. He doesn't say what sort of issues it would hypothetically be acceptable for Blacktown or an equivalent to legislate. Yet that is the point.

This line of argument goes nowhere. The ACT and the NT are big enough to stand on their own feet if the constitution allowed it. There are many nation-states smaller than or roughly equivalent in size to the ACT, such as Iceland (357,000), Luxembourg (637,000) and many of the new nations of the Pacific and the Caribbean. These nation-states have full sovereign powers.

Many states in larger federations are quite small too. The USA, for instance, has seven states with a population of less than 1 million people. Canada has four states under 1 million. Like Tasmanians, territorians shouldn't be defensive about their relatively small size, nor should they allow themselves to be bullied by larger entities. Rather, they should speak up about the advantages that flow from their size.

A broader discussion is more profitable. It should incorporate both the costs and the benefits of population size when it comes to government and democracy. The same costs and benefits apply to big and small organisations, including big and small corporations.

The popular maxim "small is beautiful" is also applicable to democracies. There is a long history in Australia of communities wanting to break away from existing states to establish new ones. These potential new states, like Northern Queensland or Northern NSW, would of course be smaller, but would be willing to pay that price in order to take control of their own affairs. There is also a long history in Australia of local communities trying to preserve their own local governments in the face of top-down pressures for larger local authorities.

READ MORE:

These pressures for bigger governments are usually driven by economic arguments about efficiencies and the savings larger entities can generate.

The benefits of smaller governments lie in greater community cohesion and a greater sense of common interest. They include government closer to the people being governed, rather than at a distance. In an ideal world this enables more sensitive and accountable government, with members of parliament more aware of local interests and less removed from those they are elected to serve.

On the other hand, the biggest nation-states, including democracies like the United States and autocracies like China, are almost certainly too large if the measure is citizen satisfaction. The same applies to some of the largest states in federations, including California in the US (about 40 million). Federal arrangements and local governments mitigate some of these weaknesses by providing government closer to the people and checks and balances on governments at each level. But both federations and strong local governments are themselves controversial, and have their strong critics. Federations bring intergovernmental conflict and constitutional rigidity, as coping with the COVID-19 pandemic has shown in Australia and elsewhere.

There is no ideal size for a democracy. Even minimum and maximum sizes are subjective. If there was an ideal size, many citizens would not care anyway because they are sceptical of any government. They distrust elected politicians under any system. They live their lives for their family, their small community and their jobs. Anything else is largely irrelevant.

This is just as true in Canberra as it is anywhere else. Many proud Canberrans see no evidence of the alleged benefits of living in a relatively small jurisdiction. They may be in favour of territory rights, but when it comes to making a decision about whether they should live or work in the ACT or in nearby NSW, for instance, it is an economic or lifestyle decision, not one based on the political theory of democracy - something both constitutional lawyers and political scientists should consider.