There are many instances of good governments - despotisms, monarchies - without democracy, & plenty of examples of bad democracy. Any scientific examination would show that there is no statistical correlation between the two. Any attempt at a double blind trial would be interesting, to say the least.
Most people want democracy because they think it empowers them - that is, they feel as if they have input into the system, & that they are clever enough to contribute. Note that their contribution is not to actually do anything within the running of the government, but to bitch & moan about what the government isn’t doing for them. “Ask not what your country can do for you …”
Middle class voters in a democracy think that they know better than those they elect to represent them. I make this distinction because anywhere that has a distinct upper class knows that the government doesn’t affect them, & the lower classes never get any real social change out of a government.
The vocal middle class, which forms the majority in western democracies (by definition, I suspect) expects that the government does its bidding, but in doing so, they put their direct faith in political parties making a land grab for the middle ground to represent them. You can’t be too conservative (seen to bolster the entrenched money & big business at the expense of the average punter), nor too radical (introduce social change that diminishes the differentiation from the disenfranchised).
It would seem that politics has no place for rerpesenting those two groups, no matter how small, & they are therefore unlikely to play an overt or direct part in government. A classic example in Australia is a quite competent self-made millionaire who was constantly referred to as silver-tailed, so had to step down from party leadership, no matter how clever & energetic he was. At the other end of the scale, how likely is it that a homeless or disabled person will be elected? Even a long-term unemployed person?
Very occasionally, someone under thirty is elected, almost by accident.
Strangely, when we create plebiscites, we ‘ensure’ representation from a broad range of demographics. For something serious, like policy-making within the government, that is not deemed to be appropriate.
One of the problems with a democracy is how the electorate is structured. If we assume an homogenous voting population, there is no issue - all voters would be like all candidates, & there would be some ‘fairness’ such that representation would be based on an individual’s ability to sell themselves & their policies. However, the population is not homogenous (thankfully), & voters are a large cross-section of the population. Even in Australia, with compulsory voting, those who aren’t citizens (regardless of length of residency) or old enough are not represented.
Within any given electorate, a minority is likely to be represented by their candidature. Minorities include non-European, under twenty-five, over sixty, unemployed. In some cases, each ‘minority’ might be significant, but they won’t band together - the young & old won’t join forces to topple the middle ground. If this happens in each electorate, then the total parliament is always likely to be a collection of the least offensive candidates across the electorates.
In fact, it’s almost as if the major parties, whose sole purpose is to fill the parliament with their trustworthy members, seeks out ‘sound’ non-confrontational voter-friendly puppets to dance in front of the electorate & smile sweetly for the (local) media to garner votes from the new disenfranchised - those without proper representation. The race is on to get a second preference, for example (in a preferential voting system).
It doesn’t matter if your primary vote is ‘wasted’ on a candidate who stands for something that can be believed in. If only ten percent of the electorate agree with you, your vote goes on to your second choice - someone who you didn’t believe in as much. Your principles have been compromised. As counting continues & candidates are discarded, it may come down to the order in which your last two choices were made - or else your vote has expired & been disregarded - your opinion is no longer represented.
This is an implementation of democracy. I don’t feel empowered. I don’t feel represented. I don’t feel as though it can guarantee me a good government. I see no evidence of it.
A good government is one that makes good decisions for the good of the country - the people within it, not necessarily the people it represents.
If the two functions of government in a western democracy are to create policy & oversee its implementation, then neither of these are going to be done well if the policy makers are chosen from a select group of middle ground people.
There has to be a way to ensure representation of the elctorate, but not necessarily within electorates. By that, I mean that there is something fundamentally wrong with forming a government from a majority within one group of elected officials, where each is the least worst representative of a geographically-defined cross-section of the otherwise heterogeneous population, having been selected by organisations who represent little more than themselves.
As tortuous as that paragraph was, it’s probably the only answer to the question I ask nearly any time I see a politician on the television - “How on earth did that idiot ever get into parliament?”
No comments:
Post a Comment