Represent!
It seems to me that most of my most futile political arguments are about that most sacred of cows, democracy. You cannot question its alleged virtues without being looked at as though you are advocating mass genocide or ritual pederasty.
There are oh so many things wrong with democracy in all its myriad forms, I can scarcely begin to enumerate them. But I’ll give it a go.
Firstly, there is the issue of the tyranny of the majority. Or in many cases, the tyranny of the minority. Let’s assume we have a “genuine democracy” (whatever that may be!) where one party wins 50.1% of the vote and turnout is 100%. This is clearly a majority. But even if there is an outright majority, that still leaves a significant minority that has pretty much no say in anything till the next election.
It’s even worse in the UK, where as little as 36% of the electorate can get to decide how the other 64% live for the next four or five years. In fact, in the UK it’s much worse because the overwhelming majority of seats are “safe”, i.e., they will return the person wearing the correct rosette colour for the rest of eternity. So the actual decisions are made in a relatively small handful of “swing” seats.
And think about all those seats where the governing party didn’t return a representative. There are whole swathes of the UK which are overwhelmingly Labour that effectively have no representation for the next few years. (Whether that’s a good thing or not is not my point!)
Despite the fact that an entire county may “be Labour”, they have no say in how they are governed for the next few years. In a few years’ time, the situation will doubtlessly be reversed and entire swathes of Tory country will have absolutely no say in how they are governed.
Another major flaw is that once elected, the winning party doesn’t have to actually do any of the things it said it was going to do. It can always cite external catastrophes or post-election complexities as legitimate reasons for failing to do what they said they would. Quite often, they also do things they said they wouldn’t – “no new taxes” is one particularly prevalent example.
So, how do we get around this? Referenda? Well, that’s a potential way to address significant issues (Switzerland does this) but even this is fraught with difficulties. How do you phrase a referendum question so that all the complexities are addressed? What happens if none of the options for the referendum matches your view? It can also be time-consuming for you to understand all the issues underlying the referendum question, so it’s very onerous on the public to be subjected to referenda all the time.
Another suggested solution to this is alternative forms of voting. One of the features of the UK’s first past the post system is that is usually leads to a clear winner and the need for a coalition is rare. Another feature is that it leads to tyranny of the minority.
Proponents of other voting systems claim that doing away with first past the post voting is that coalitions will become the order of the day and that the views of the majority will have to be considered, so policies are less likely to be radical and tyranny of the majority (or minority) will become less prevalent. Another way to think about it is that policies will be negotiated between different political parties and policies will become based on a frenzy of mutual back-scratching on deals discussed behind locked doors.
The American system (for some reason held out as a bastion of libertarian society) has led to so-called “pork-barrel politics” on a truly industrial scale. So their system isn’t any better.
It really doesn’t matter which kind of democracy you have, once the politicians are elected, they are effectively unaccountable for their term of office. Does it really matter if you vote Gordon Brown out once he’s destroyed the economy? He still has his salary and his pension.
And in truth, the other big problem with democracy is the voter. Everywhere you look at democracies, voting is treated primarily as some sort of tribal game. The overwhelming majority of voters will be voting exactly the same as they have since they started voting. Even though David Cameron is the wettest “Tory” since … well, ever, he will still be voted in for his constituency come the next election, no matter how useless and incompetent and sleazy (and un-Tory) his government may be.
Tribal voters will continue to vote the same way they always have, based on the colour of the rosette and entirely ignoring the issues or policies proffered.
In exchange for this farrago of nonsense, politicians get to spend our money, dictate how we live our lives and tie us all up in a sea of controls. Is it really such a noble thing, democracy, when you see it as the excuse for thuggery and bullying that it really is?
-
June 9, 2012 at 20:55 -
Great article – we’ve been covering this subject ourselves over on Bunny Island
http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/democracy-doesnt-work-vol-1.html
The biggest single problem with democracy, that TJW alludes to, is that it both enables and encourages the large-scale bribery of voters. George Bernard Shaw articulated it brilliantly “a government that promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul”.
Then you’ve got the emergence of client groups within the elctorate who get their claws into political parties and end up calling the shots (gangster corporate types, union militants). Democracy eventually becomes a contest between these groups to see who can get five years’ worth of goodies at someone else’s expense.
Solutions – a level playing field for political exposure, either everyone gets a broadcast or nobody does. Cap political donations at £5,000 per individual or legal entity each year. A written constitution, independent supreme court and independently appointed second chamber, rather than one filled with hereditary dinosaurs or politcal failures, be they appointed or elected.
-
June 9, 2012 at 05:01 -
A few things to think about:
Make voting compulsory.
Get rid of the party whips.
Make MP’s more accountable by having “open primaries”-
June 9, 2012 at 18:17 -
And if I choose not to vote?
What then?
-
-
June 8, 2012 at 10:02 -
And that’s why I love this blog…… good article. All sacred beliefs should periodically be given a damned good kicking to see if they still apply.
Yup, democracy, unfortunately, relies on people and people often have beliefs and prejudices that are uncomfortable for others. I personally find the BNP stupid, banal, ignorant of history and genetics HOWEVER – who says I am right? I absolutely believe that I am as does that obnoxious little oik Nick Griffin. So what to do? We have voters and hope that the majority – -whether through laziness or thoughtful interrogation of the issues (hah!) – cast their votes for politicans that reflect the nicer aspects of humanity.
I don’t think democracy is quite as bleak as the right hon. TJW suggests. Politicians who overstep the mark are usually confronted and dealt with by the electorate between elections. They can’t quite do as they damn well please. It’s one good thing to come from incessent polls and focus groups and (whisper it) agitating tabloids – we, the people, get a chance to tell those governing for the people that we take a dim view of ….er… Pasty Tax.
Um, yeah – okay there are some ‘opportunities’ for democracy to get better but it’s better than any alternative systems tried to date.
ps: More seriously – I do think anyone who has studied PPE at any University should be automatically barred from being a politican.
-
June 8, 2012 at 11:58 -
Or more more seriously, any one who wants to be a MP should be automatically barred from being a politician!
-
June 8, 2012 at 12:24 -
Was it a Terry Pratchett book that featured a political system where the king was picked by lottery and if he did ok he was allowed to live at the end of his term? If not then off with his head….. would focus MP’s thoughts somewhat and may also make them think twice about tinkering with things that ain’t broke.
Ah well – I can dream.
-
-
-
June 7, 2012 at 21:24 -
Dave a Tory, even a wet one? Don’t make me laugh.
-
June 7, 2012 at 17:36 -
“Probably” the finest rant about ‘democracy’ ever written?-
MacDonough’s Song.
[From “As Easy as ABC” by Rudyard Kipling -1917]WHETHER the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth—
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote—
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give,
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King—
Or Holy People’s Will—
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Saying—after—me:—Once there was The People—Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The People—it shall never be again! -
June 7, 2012 at 17:15 -
I find it worrying that just about anyone over eighteen years of age can vote, even when they obviously have the thought processes of a breeze-block. See EDL, BNP, NF, BFP, et al, ad infinitum
-
June 7, 2012 at 17:34
-
-
June 7, 2012 at 16:54 -
Good article. Clearly, there are huge problems with democracy, including those that you mention. However, given that we are never going to have a perfect system, the question becomes “what steps can we take to make it as effective as possible?” For me, the answer lies in education.
-
June 7, 2012 at 17:16 -
“For me, the answer lies in education.”
And therein lies the problem in UK as so well demonstrated in Anna’s post “Sugar and Spice”.
-
June 7, 2012 at 21:26 -
I didn’t say “school” I’m afraid!
-
-
-
June 7, 2012 at 16:50 -
What about that old classic: Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the other ones!
-
June 7, 2012 at 12:02 -
You can really just cut down your article by 90% and skip straight to the end.
99% of democracies problems are the voters.
You are wrong to say “once the politicians are elected, they are effectively unaccountable for their term of office.”
Nothing stops us getting them out with mass hectoring / peaceful demonstrations etc.
Do you honestly think gordon brown would have been allowed to stay as PM if millions constantly kept protesting, ya ya.
-
June 7, 2012 at 17:12 -
Do you honestly think gordon brown would have been allowed to stay as PM if millions constantly kept protesting, ya ya.
No Gordon would have made it illegal to protest – simples.
-
-
June 7, 2012 at 10:06 -
There’s only one alternative, as far as I can see: benign dictatorship.
I’ll take power when I’ve done the shopping.
-
June 7, 2012 at 10:19 -
There is another option.
No all powerful state for politicians to hijack. No monopoly on coercive violence.
-
June 7, 2012 at 16:49 -
Anarcho-syndicalism?
-
June 7, 2012 at 19:49 -
I had never come across that term before and had to Google it. No, not A-S if this is what you mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
As it is conceptually flawed from the off. Without private property rights it is hard to know how there can be real freedom and the whole democratic bit relies on the monopoly on coercive violence to enforce the collective will against dissenters. Then there is the question of where the entrepeneurss come from in such a system and how you gain market dominance without simply stealing private assets in the first place.
-
-
-
June 7, 2012 at 15:23 -
@JuliaM…
That’s a bit like the story about Hitler and the king of Denmark…
Hitler wrote to the king to suggest that Germany and Denmark might merge, what did the king think? The king thought and then wrote back that at nearly 70, he was far too old to govern two nations.
I expect Hitler smiled serenely at the king’s wit.
-
June 7, 2012 at 16:49 -
Hahaha, that is a pretty good one!
-
-
-
June 7, 2012 at 09:42 -
Whilst I understand the limitations of democracy, it has to be said that the manner in which it is operated in the UK is the worst possible system…
First, it should be issue based, rather than representative, indeed there is no reason why an MP should not be pulled off of the electoral register, in the same way as a juror, to perform the role of part time MP for one term, when someone else is selected at random.
The issues should be raised either by an MP, on behalf of his local government, or most importantly by citizens collecting a particular amount of signatures.
There should also be an annual vote on the government budget.
So, under this system, democracy is still not perfect (it can never be), but the MP is replaced automatically once every 5 years, the issues are mainly raised by the people and are therefore relevant, and the budget is kept in check through the annual vote, and very importantly, the party system is kept in check.
The whole system should be underwritten by a constitutional document, which tells EVERYONE (including MP’s) what they CAN’T do… Bills of rights (ooman or otherwise) are so passé, but a much shorter document which tells the government what it can’t do, is far easier to manage.
Of course, the problem with this happy little arrangement, is that the people that are really being controlled here are the MP’s, and so used are they to controlling everyone else, that they think that this is their right. Well the reality is that they are supposed to be servants, and that is what they used to say at their post electoral speeches… Your humble servant etc. etc., not these days.
Essentially for democracy to have even the slightest chance of succeeding, those that are most likely to hijack the system need to be neutered.
-
June 7, 2012 at 10:52 -
The idea of having a ‘jury’ as the ultimate authority appeals to me.
Its members would be selected at random so would be more representative than self-selecting politicians. They would be appointed for a fixed term and would have supreme powers to review and reject legislation, but not to initiate it. A sort of super select committee that could call anyone to account.
I’m sure most people appointed would rise to the occasion and act responsibly.
-
-
Comments are closed.
{ 27 comments }