On the state of our democracies
May. 8th, 2005 08:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chickenfeetVE Day seems like a good day to write up some recent musings about democracy and its current state in the North Atlantic countries.
It's often claimed that WW2 was fought "to defend democracy". In a sense that's nonsense. It was fought to contain German and Japanese aggression but it has the same kind of symbolic truth as the statement that the American Civil War was fought "to end slavery". The cold war, with its new moral dualism, almost required that democracy be what had been fought for, so in the popular imagination that's what it became and that's what it remains. Indeed we have reached the point where any party that is considered insufficiently democratic becomes a pariah, as with Austria's "Freedom Party". So what, then, have the denocrcies done with their successfully defended democracy?
One half of me says that democracy is dying of inanition. Elections in the United States have become farcical on several levels, most notably the gerrymandering of Congressional Districts, but the Electoral College system also contributes to the undoubted fact that in the vast majority of elections the result is a foregone conclusion. No wonder the turnout is so low.
In Canada and Britain the demise of the two party system means that general elections on the first past the post system have become strongly biased to the centrist parties. It's possible, as this week's election in Britain has shown, to have a thumping majority on little more than a third of the votes cast. This leads to a vicious circle of apathy and illegitimacy, meaningless contests mean lower turnout, which in turn means the victorious party has the express support of an even smaller proportion of the electorate. Scarcely one eligible voter in five voted Labour in Britain this week.
Canada has a different but equally pernicious problem. Because the fundamental split in Quebec elections is federalist/sovereigntist and the default federalist vote is Liberal, it's virtually impossible for any party other than the Liberals to win a majority and even an anti-Liberal coalition is impossible without a deal with the sovereigntists that would be regarded as little short of treason in the rest of Canada. The current "adscam" shows just how pernicious this is. We have a government of criminals but no viable alternative to them.
Now, it could be argued that the degree of political apathy is a function of the essential stability of the system and therefore a good thing. (1) Why expect people to vote when, as the anarchists have it, the government always gets in? I think this argument has merit up to a point. The trouble is, it looks like an unstable equilibrium. What guarantee is there that under crisis conditions, say a major recession, the voters would come flooding back to defend and legitimise democracy? I'm skeptical. I'm also idealistic enough to believe that the views of free men and women ought to count for something in the formation of public policy.
I think the time has come to reclaim the political process, as far as it can be, from the professional elite of poll watching politicians, spin doctors, PR consultants and media hacks. To do that I think we need changes to the system that ensure that legislatures reflect the full range of popular opinion (even if some of those views are repugnant) and which give people a sense that their votes count and that they have a stake in the system. I don't see how this can be done without some form of proportional representation.
I would place as design principles the following:
1. The proportion of seats won by a party should reflect the views of the electorate.
2. There should be a link between constituency/riding and representatives.
3. There should not be 1st and 2nd class representatives.
4. The electorate rather than the party machine should choose who gets elected.
5. The system should be as transparent as possible.
Based on these principles I would unquestionably choose Single Transferable Vote in multiple member ridings (probably three or four members per riding though exceptions might have to be made for large sparsely populated areas). While it's not perfect, we know that it is practicable as Northern ireland and Australia have shown. It probably leads to under-representation of very minor parties but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It would lead to a much more representative split among the major parties and avoid the need for such marriages of convenience as the Canadian Conservative Alliance.
The usual argument against reform is that any PR system inevitably leads to instability and frequent elections. This is isn't true as the German Federal Republic demonstrates. The real threat to stability (political and social) is cynicism about the system and that, I maintain, is growing and with good cause.
I think there are other positive arguments to be made for PR. One is that it reduces the power of the Prime minister and his unelected advisers and to some extent returns it to Cabinet and Parliament. The dangers of a five year elective dictatorship have been made fairly obvious by Messrs Blair and Chretien. Another is that it may just return some civility to the political process. The current grandstanding and hyperbole of the two party system may be undermined. It's hard to describe someone as the devil incarnate one week and form a coalition with them the next!
I'm less sure what the appropriate reforms would be in the US but STV for the House and the abolition of the Electoral College would probably form part of the package. I'd be interested in the views of those with more of a hands on view of the US political process.
So, as we reflect today on the demise of the European dictators and the sacrifices that were made to rid the world of them, perhaps we could give a few thoughts to how we can ensure that we never see their like again.
fn1: Thanks to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lemur_catta for this idea.
It's often claimed that WW2 was fought "to defend democracy". In a sense that's nonsense. It was fought to contain German and Japanese aggression but it has the same kind of symbolic truth as the statement that the American Civil War was fought "to end slavery". The cold war, with its new moral dualism, almost required that democracy be what had been fought for, so in the popular imagination that's what it became and that's what it remains. Indeed we have reached the point where any party that is considered insufficiently democratic becomes a pariah, as with Austria's "Freedom Party". So what, then, have the denocrcies done with their successfully defended democracy?
One half of me says that democracy is dying of inanition. Elections in the United States have become farcical on several levels, most notably the gerrymandering of Congressional Districts, but the Electoral College system also contributes to the undoubted fact that in the vast majority of elections the result is a foregone conclusion. No wonder the turnout is so low.
In Canada and Britain the demise of the two party system means that general elections on the first past the post system have become strongly biased to the centrist parties. It's possible, as this week's election in Britain has shown, to have a thumping majority on little more than a third of the votes cast. This leads to a vicious circle of apathy and illegitimacy, meaningless contests mean lower turnout, which in turn means the victorious party has the express support of an even smaller proportion of the electorate. Scarcely one eligible voter in five voted Labour in Britain this week.
Canada has a different but equally pernicious problem. Because the fundamental split in Quebec elections is federalist/sovereigntist and the default federalist vote is Liberal, it's virtually impossible for any party other than the Liberals to win a majority and even an anti-Liberal coalition is impossible without a deal with the sovereigntists that would be regarded as little short of treason in the rest of Canada. The current "adscam" shows just how pernicious this is. We have a government of criminals but no viable alternative to them.
Now, it could be argued that the degree of political apathy is a function of the essential stability of the system and therefore a good thing. (1) Why expect people to vote when, as the anarchists have it, the government always gets in? I think this argument has merit up to a point. The trouble is, it looks like an unstable equilibrium. What guarantee is there that under crisis conditions, say a major recession, the voters would come flooding back to defend and legitimise democracy? I'm skeptical. I'm also idealistic enough to believe that the views of free men and women ought to count for something in the formation of public policy.
I think the time has come to reclaim the political process, as far as it can be, from the professional elite of poll watching politicians, spin doctors, PR consultants and media hacks. To do that I think we need changes to the system that ensure that legislatures reflect the full range of popular opinion (even if some of those views are repugnant) and which give people a sense that their votes count and that they have a stake in the system. I don't see how this can be done without some form of proportional representation.
I would place as design principles the following:
1. The proportion of seats won by a party should reflect the views of the electorate.
2. There should be a link between constituency/riding and representatives.
3. There should not be 1st and 2nd class representatives.
4. The electorate rather than the party machine should choose who gets elected.
5. The system should be as transparent as possible.
Based on these principles I would unquestionably choose Single Transferable Vote in multiple member ridings (probably three or four members per riding though exceptions might have to be made for large sparsely populated areas). While it's not perfect, we know that it is practicable as Northern ireland and Australia have shown. It probably leads to under-representation of very minor parties but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It would lead to a much more representative split among the major parties and avoid the need for such marriages of convenience as the Canadian Conservative Alliance.
The usual argument against reform is that any PR system inevitably leads to instability and frequent elections. This is isn't true as the German Federal Republic demonstrates. The real threat to stability (political and social) is cynicism about the system and that, I maintain, is growing and with good cause.
I think there are other positive arguments to be made for PR. One is that it reduces the power of the Prime minister and his unelected advisers and to some extent returns it to Cabinet and Parliament. The dangers of a five year elective dictatorship have been made fairly obvious by Messrs Blair and Chretien. Another is that it may just return some civility to the political process. The current grandstanding and hyperbole of the two party system may be undermined. It's hard to describe someone as the devil incarnate one week and form a coalition with them the next!
I'm less sure what the appropriate reforms would be in the US but STV for the House and the abolition of the Electoral College would probably form part of the package. I'd be interested in the views of those with more of a hands on view of the US political process.
So, as we reflect today on the demise of the European dictators and the sacrifices that were made to rid the world of them, perhaps we could give a few thoughts to how we can ensure that we never see their like again.
fn1: Thanks to
lemur_catta for this idea.
