The US gets a lot of criticism for its “exceptionalism” – the belief that it’s possessed of unique virtues and has nothing to learn from other countries – but Americans aren’t the only ones who think that way. Probably every country is prone to it at times. Certainly Australia is, as two recent examples show.

One, already debated in Crikey, is compulsory voting. Supporters of compulsion predict dire consequences if it were to be abandoned, apparently oblivious to the fact that almost every other established democracy manages without it. Do they really think those systems are all dysfunctional? Or that our democracy is so perfect that we have nothing to learn from others?

Supporters of compulsory voting mostly come from the left, but the right has equally large blind spots. Witness the news this week that the Victorian government plans to introduce a charter of rights to protect basic civil and political liberties – the first state to do so, although the ACT implemented one last year.

As bills of rights go, this is a pretty feeble example – it will have only persuasive force, with courts able to rule that rights have been breached but not actually strike down offending legislation. But this morning’s Australian launched a three-pronged attack against it – an editorial, an op-ed article, and a report on comments by federal attorney-general Philip Ruddock – all to the effect that bills of rights are unnecessary, anti-democratic and a power grab by lawyers.

Leave aside the internal weaknesses in these arguments; the striking thing about them is their insularity. Look around! Every other constitutional democracy has some sort of bill of rights. Shouldn’t the argument engage with that fact? Or do we really think that our legal system is beyond improvement?