Entry 2208, on 2022-03-15 at 14:26:59 (Rating 2, Politics)
OK, before I even get started, let's get the classic response to my argument out of the way: Churchill said that "democracy is the worst form of government... apart from all the rest". The meaning of this should be obvious enough, but here's my interpretation: we know democracy has it's problems, but every other form of government we've tried has more problems, so democracy is still the best choice, overall.
There are a lot of reasons to accept this proposition. Non-democratic governments (theocracies, fascist, monarchies, communist, dictatorships) have some benefits, especially in the areas of decisiveness and efficiency, but in general these have not produced the most stable societies, or the best living conditions for the citizens.
Look at the problems with theocracies in the Middle East, or at the issues with various forms of "communism" if you need examples. Also, note that I'm not debating over the exact meaning of those terms, but they can be useful when used in a less formal, less precise sense.
So what are the problems with democracy? The way I see it, they are the following...
First, what you vote for is often not what you get. Once in power governments often "change their mind" about issues such as new taxes, race-based governance, and draconian central controls. If you live in New Zealand you might recognise which government I'm using as an example in this case!
Second, people tend to vote on the basis of party loyalty or the personality of leaders, rather than who has the best policies. This happens in many countries, including obvious events recently in the US, as well as here in New Zealand.
Third, no individual or party has all the policies (and underlying philosophies) that an individual voter is likely to support. So there are policies of all the main parties here that I like and others which I dislike. It would be so much better if I could pick the policies I like instead of the party which most closely matches what I want.
Fourth, politicians often act based on what is going to get them elected rather than what is best for the country. Theoretically, these two things should be the same, but the distortion caused by the electoral process makes this worse than it needs to be.
Fifth, policies are often made on a short term basis to fit in with the voting cycle, and even those which are expected to take longer are often more aspirational (in other words, not particularly serious) than practical. For example, who takes the idea of zero road deaths, or zero carbon use in the next few decades seriously? If you do, you shouldn't.
Sixth, politicians are often forced into taking a particular action or following a particular ideology based on their party's policies rather than what they believe is best. The fact that we have "conscience votes" on some subjects, which are free (theoretically) from party influence shows this. And, by the way, does that mean that other votes don't involve any conscience?
Seventh, elections can easily be hijacked by media campaigns which are very expensive to run, so we get the "best democracy money can buy", especially in the US, and to a lesser extent, elsewhere.
Finally, it is very difficult for new parties to gain any sort of power in most democratic systems. Even in New Zealand, where we have a proportional representation system, and in almost every case (apart from right now) have had coalition governments, few smaller parties have any success. We do have three who have been part of governments in the past, but they were all existing small parties and no new ones have been successful, although that could be easily fixed by removing the 5% threshold rule.
I'm sure there are other issues I haven't mentioned, but these are the main ones which concern me. Clearly there are issues which need to be fixed, so what am I proposing?
Well, I'm advocating for direct democracy. Yes, I know: you've heard it all before, but I think now is the time when it could be made to work. There are two major problems with this idea, one philosophical and the other practical, so let's get those out of the way first.
First, the practical issue. Direct democracy would involve all major issues being voted on by the citizens of the country. How could this be done without incurring great costs in terms of money and people's time?
Until now, this would be impractical, because votes and referenda are just too hard and expensive to organise. But if we had a well designed internet-based service to do this votes could be done for almost no cost.
We can safely use banking services on-line, so it should be possible to use similar security and identification technology to run a referendum. Anyone who doesn't have a smartphone, tablet, or computer could go to a local institution (library, for example) to vote on their devices, with help from staff, but as time goes by people would get used to doing it themselves. We already demand people use similar technology for banking, COVID tracking, etc, so there is a precedent.
How would we avoid running too many votes, especially on trivial or technical issues? Well, there could be an internet portal (web site, app, whatever) where people could indicate their interest in a subject and ask for the policy to go to a public vote. If a certain fraction of the population demanded this, a direct democracy referendum (DDR) would be required, otherwise the government could just go ahead and implement the change like they do now.
So it seems to me that there are ways these practical problems could be overcome. No one said it would be easy, but the potential advantages are so great that it is well worth attempting.
Second, the philosophical issue. Many people say that representative democracies (which is what almost every democracy is) ultimately give power to politicians because the population in general cannot be trusted with making decisions themselves.
This is clearly very insulting to the average person, but there is some merit in the idea. What would stop everyone voting for simplistic measure which only superficially seem to favour them (low taxes, for example)? What would stop the majority voting against the interests of minorities? What would stop people making stupid decisions through pure ignorance?
I could ask exactly the same questions about politicians. While their basic level of intelligence, knowledge, and rationality could arguably be said to be ahead of that of the average citizen, there are still plenty of unskilled people in power. For example, the current New Zealand government ahs very few ministers with any real skill in the area they are in charge of. In fact, most of them simply have no skills or knowledge which most people would take seriously.
Also, do people have the right to make mistakes? Should citizens be able to do "the wrong thing" if they genuinely believe it is right? Again, it's exactly what politicians already do, so why not just pass the potential criticism for mistakes on to those who are most affected? Next time, the people might be more careful in how they vote; politicians rarely admit they are wrong.
The title of this post is "Democracy Isn't Working", which is very catchy, but it's not completely true. Democracy is working, but not as well as we would like. It's time for us to try to make the least bad system even less bad than it is now. And it shouldn't be that hard.
So you think democracy doens't work, what is the alternative? No ideas.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2022-04-06 at 17:37:13:
Yeah, as I said, democracy has its faults, but it might still be the best option we have. And I thought it was fairly clear that my suggested alternative was direct democracy - more a modification to our existing system than a replacement for it.
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2022-04-07 at 11:27:10:
What makes you think your "direct democracy" scheme would not be abused and manipulated? Advertising and lobbying leading up to mini referendums would be out of control. Remember the MMP referendum that was influenced big time by a few individuals with mega bucks? Is that really what you want?
What you tend to get, for example in Switzerland, is that fragmentation replaces strategy (even if it is a 3 year electoral cycle) as every issue is voted on in isolation without any overall roadmap... sounds crazy.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2022-04-08 at 14:54:21:
Well sure, you can list the disadvantages of any system, but you need to look at them in comparison to the advantages of that system and with the disadvantages of others. For example, any time a vote is required in any system there is a possibility of someone flooding the media with propaganda to support one side.
On balance I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, so while those "campaigns" may not be what I want, they are something I can tolerate to get the advantages I have listed.
I think there is a road map in direct democracy, but it is one maintained by the voters rather than the politicians. In some ways you can see long term strategies being better supported by the general population rather than a set of politicians which change every few years.
Comment 5 by Anonymous on 2022-04-08 at 16:23:45:
"but it is one maintained by the voters rather than the politicians". Ha ha, how naive.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2022-04-08 at 17:47:50:
I think the general population is likely to have more consistent aims than politicians who are changed every few years and are susceptible to political whims. Also, if the people make a mistake it affects them and they might not do it again. Often there are no consequences for politicians doing something stupid.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE