In October, Australia will have a historic vote for Indigenous people through a referendum on voice

On October 14, the citizens of Australia will participate in a historic referendum to decide whether or not to establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

If successful, the vote would recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the country's constitution and establish a permanent body for them to give advice on laws. Additionally, the vote would establish a body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to give advice on legislation.

In Australia, there is a heated debate going on about the plan right now.

Since the beginning of virtually the next half century, the nation has not had a referendum that was successful.

In order for it to be successful, it is necessary for the majority of Australians to vote in favor of it. In addition to this, there must be support from the population at large in at least four of Australia's six states.

The parliament would subsequently be responsible for designing and debating the body's make-up, its functions, and its powers; but, the body's recommendations would not carry any legal weight.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese referred to the election as "a once-in-a-generation chance to bring our country together and to change it for the better" when he made the announcement at a rally in Adelaide. The election will take place on May 18th.

He explained that "a committee of Indigenous Australians, chosen by Indigenous Australians, giving advice to government so that we can get a better result for Indigenous Australians" would make up "The Voice."

"You are being asked... to say yes to an idea whose time has come - to say yes to an invitation that comes directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people themselves," the invitation reads. "You are being asked to say yes to an idea whose time has come."

The recommendation was included in a significant document that was published in 2017 and titled the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The declaration is considered to be the best call to action for reforms that will affect First Nations Australians, despite the fact that it was not unanimously agreed upon by its signatories, which number over 250 Indigenous leaders.

What exactly is the plan for Australia's Voice to Parliament?
The fact that Australia is the only country in the Commonwealth that has never signed a treaty with its Indigenous people is one of the reasons why campaigners believe the Voice is such a vital step towards reconciliation.

Indigenous Australians are subjected to disproportionately high levels of disadvantage across society, which is an issue that Australia has been having trouble addressing for a long time.

Peter Dutton, the leader of the opposition party and an opponent of Voice, has stated that there is little detail supporting the concept and has controversially asserted that it might racially divide Australians.

However, a large number of opponents of the motion, including Mr. Dutton, have been accused of distributing false material and engaging in racial slurs.

They, in turn, have leveled accusations of elitism and disregard for the legitimate concerns of average Australians at the Yes campaign.

Advocates for mental health have warned that the level of intensity and tone of the debate is having a negative impact on Indigenous people.

The most recent referendum that was held in Australia was in 1999, when the country decided against transitioning to a republic.

Only eight of Australia's total of 44 referendums have been successful, with the most recent one taking place in 1977. None of them have been passed without the support of both political parties.

Yevgeny Prigozhin: Wagner defied Putin and now its leader may be dead

When Yevgeny Prigozhin and his Wagner troops launched their insurrection two months ago, Vladimir Putin made his feelings more than clear. He called it "treachery" and a "stab in the back" of Russia. He promised that the perpetrators would be punished.

So there was incredulity in Russia when they were not. When a deal was cut between Mr Prigozhin and the Kremlin to end the mutiny; when all the charges against the Wagner founder and his fighters were dropped, despite the fact that Russian servicemen had been killed during the murky but brief insurrection.

It made President Putin look weak.

Commenting on the agreed compromise (ending the mutiny in exchange for immunity from prosecution) one Russian newspaper commented: "This kind of compromise is normally made with political opponents. Never with criminals and terrorists. Does that mean we should view Mr Prigozhin now as a political figure?"

Suddenly things look rather different.

Exactly two months on, Mr Prigozhin is presumed dead after his private jet crashed and exploded in a field. Wagner commander Dmitry Utkin was on the same jet.

The Russian elite will shed few tears over Mr Prigozhin's reported demise. That goes for Russia's military leadership, whom Mr Prigozhin had publicly and vocally condemned and whom he demanded be sacked. The Wagner boss claimed that the so-called "March of Justice" (his euphemism for the insurrection) had not targeted the Kremlin but had instead been directed at Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and the Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov.

In reality, the Wagner mutiny had been a direct challenge to President Putin's authority and a humiliating 24 hours for the Kremlin. Mr Putin himself pointed out that the Russian state had been financing Wagner. Money had clearly not bought loyalty.

If this was an act of revenge by those in power, that sends two clear messages to Mr Prigozhin's loyalists and to anyone else in Russia who may have been contemplating armed resistance:

Don't try

Look what happens to those who do.

That means that President Putin could emerge from these dramatic events stronger domestically.

But what if Mr Prigozhin becomes a martyr? What if those who had pledged loyalty to him - and who are well-trained fighters - call for their own acts of revenge?

Grey Zone, a Telegram channel linked to Wagner, blamed Mr Prigozhin's reported death on "Russian traitors".

It did not clarify who it believed those traitors were and what Wagner's response would be.

If this crash was foul play, that will come as little surprise to many in Russia. Ever since the mutiny there has been feverish speculation about Mr Prigozhin's fate, about whether his actions really would be forgiven.

He must have known that. Yet, in recent weeks, as he jetted around on his private plane he clearly did not view air travel as a danger. Perhaps he believed that he was too powerful, too crucial a figure in today's Russia to be taken out?