Pete’s blog

In June I started what was supposed to be a series about different types of government, unfortunately I got distracted and so part 2 is only coming to you now. However the follow-on has now become incredibly relevant. South Africa is seeing some very interesting democracy in action (for a quick comment on that, don’t stress, democracy is all about changing leaders, don’t get too attached. The easier one president leaves, the easier it is for the next one to leave) And I hope you have been watching the US elections, because it has been fascinating. I recommend you go back and reread my democracy blog (the first in this series), America is a text-book example of what happens when democracy decays, when people no longer care. Chose a backwater woman with no experience and your rating goes up (that is the nicest way I will ever describe Mooselini); think too much and talk to deeply and you get accused of elitist, intellectualism and lose rating points. And so the comment I ended that blog with “If you don’t care then maybe democracy isn’t for you”, becomes the question “So what if democracy isn’t for you?”

But let’s not get write off democracy just yet, because there are so many options and flavours to try. Firstly, who gets to vote? There is a compulsory democracy (like Australia) where every person is required by law to vote. No voter apathy – you will vote. How about only allowing people that have undergone a voter election course the right to vote? Or a year’s course in politics? How about only allowing university graduates to vote? How about only landowners (has been done in the past), or people with a certain amount of wealth? Surely the educated and the wealthy would be the most responsible people to allow the right to vote? But the rich and the educated will always be able to look after themselves, the poor should be the ones choosing who would be the best person to help them out of poverty – a plebocracy? The possibilities are endless – each segment of society having very different goals and priorities, which are often in conflict with those of other segments. The decision on who gets to vote is very strongly linked to what you believe a government should be doing…

Also what you vote for and how you vote has some interesting possibilities. One idea I really like is, instead of voting for a single choice, you vote for 2 or 3 – first preference, second preference, etc. What this means is that moderate parties have a very decent chance. You are might be a firm supporter of one major party, but you are also concerned about environmental issues and so put your second preference as the Green party. Environmental issues now gain a lot more prominence, reflecting the general concern that most people might have for the environment. Or a moderate party might win the election in a very polarised country with two opposite, competing parties. The voters are not willing to vote for the opposing party as their second preference, but are quite happy with the compromise moderate party. This form of voting is especially effective in the parliamentary/representative form of government (people get seats/representation depending on how many votes they get). On the negative side this system might be very difficult to administer, requires a wide variety of political parties, and has the potential of being too moderate and boring. But on the positive, it can create a large political space allowing more players and more people to have their say, as well as bringing issues that would otherwise be ignored to the fore.

One variation on what you vote for is that you can either vote for a party or you vote for a person. It is difficult to find a pure form of either of these, because a leader that has the final say is important, and also it is impossible to either run an election campaign or run a government in a large country all by yourself. But as an example, Britain tends more towards the party democracy system, whereas America tends more towards the executive (individual) system. In a party democracy, the party chooses its leader and can swap leaders as and when it wishes. This is a very robust system because it is effectively a democracy within a democracy. The public chooses a group of people who they think best represent their issues. This group of people, who are theoretically well educated in politics and the issues in their country (since they chose to enter politics) then choose from themselves the person they believe is best suited to lead them. What is the problem with this form – well pick 5 verbs to describe British politics and I bet one of them will be “boring”. Party democracies are slow moving and can take a while to radically shift policy – sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing. The other thing that can happen has just happened in South Africa – someone can become leader of a country without having to convince the majority of the people that they are the right person… all they need to do is convince the majority of the ruling party that they are the right person. Smaller target group, easier to influence.

An executive democracy on the other hand is where the public directly choose the one individual who they wish to lead them. Executive democracies are fast moving and decisive and can undergo rapid changes. The personality and beliefs of the chosen leader will define the government’s policy. Highly advantageous, but put some idiot with a middle name starting with W in charge and it can also be highly disastrous. This form of democracy is the most susceptible to democratic decay, since personality can play a far stronger role than policies. Note that parties are far better at developing policy than individuals. John McCain has taken full advantage of America’s leaning towards this system, he has run his campaign not as the next leader of the Republican party who have been responsible for Iraq and the bad economy, but as a ‘fresh’, ‘new’ leader who has nothing to do with George W Bush’s policies. If the public saw the last 8 years as Republican policy, McCain wouldn’t stand a chance, but he has convinced them that it is Bush’s policies.

But why just vote for a person or a party? Why not also vote for the issues? I would like [Obama/McCain] to be the leader, but I want him to follow a [pro-choice/pro-life] policy, to [withdraw from Iraq/stay in Iraq] and to [prioritise healthcare/education/industry]. Mix and match. Sadly it would be difficult to administer and to hold the leader to account for implementing what people voted for. Also people can make stupid decisions – give them a choice of [raise taxes/lower taxes] and they will pick [lower taxes] every time. Not always the right decision.

Other things to mess around with are when you vote. Limited term lengths are a popular idea at the moment, most neoliberals will tell you that anyone who stays in power for longer than 8 years will definitely become corrupt and will cling to power. I would like to point out though that Franklin D Roosevelt won four terms (12 years) in office in the US (they have since limited it to 2 terms) and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister for 11 years. Why should we limit our leaders’ terms? If they are doing a good job, keep them in. With practice they can only get better. Limited terms result in short-sighted policies. But sadly people do tend to get power crazy, take a look at Zimbabwe - leaders that stay in power get too attached to that power, they believe that they know best. Unlimited term lengths requires very, very strong legal, civil and governmental structures that will make sure that the leader will leave when it is time for them to go.

Then how about changing when you have elections. Instead of having regular elections every 4 years, why not have a continuous election? How would that work? Everyone can register whether they are happy or unhappy with the current government. If at any point you decide to change your mind, you go to an election centre (or log onto) and register your new status. A majority of people want a new government, then you have full elections to select that government. Plenty of problems with this idea though…

And there you have some different ideas for democracy, and also one of the key problems too – democracy is very hard to define. What is democracy? If a country only elected a new leader every 20 years , would that country be democratic? Why not? Democracy is government by the people and the people decided that they only want to have elections every 20 years. What if the people decide to have a leader until their death? Everyone votes to have one permanent leader… is that not still democracy then? How about if you have very well run elections every 4 years, but a small group gains control of the media and uses it to brainwash the population into believing that their group is the best to lead the country? Democracy?

I think it all comes down to what you want from your government… which will hopefully be the next topic.