Posts
Winston Churchill is once recorded as saying that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Regrettably, it seems to me that the trend for "instant democracy" is potentially a threat to the underlying concept. Here in the U.K. we see today opinion polls swinging for the first time back to the Labour Party, less than six months after the General Election. In the United States (surely the home of one of the most deeply flawed democratic models on this planet?) we see elections about to take away the 5-year mandate given to Obama after two years.
The communications revolution, by which of course I mainly mean the internet, has led to the concept of Vox Populi Vox Dei now meaning that if you can get together a group to shout loudly enough they will be given unfiltered and unweighted access to the means of propagation of that view. Take the creationist lobby as an example - they were always there and either ignored or derided by sane-thinking folk (perhaps we should have included educating as a third reaction?) - but now are given credibility in the interests of "democracy".
Dangerous thought this - should everyone get an equal vote on subjects that neither affect them or which (really dangerous) they are not informed enough to have a valid opinion? Obviously the answer is yes - but an honest as opposed to entirely populist answer would reveal some room for debate IMHO.
The real danger we are now seeing is the confusion between voting intelligently and voting for the X-factor. In both major political events outlined above we had months of discussion and debate. Right now we are seeing the simplistic reaction to the pain that present incumbents were mandated to cause for our own goods. One of the inconvenient truths behind the political systems we have adopted in the west is that we historically use our democratic models to elect dictatorships for limited periods and then hope they are benevolent. This has the simple advantage of generally working, with the sure knowledge that, if things go wrong, they only have a limited shelf-life. A stable political system must have some element of "Giving them a chance" after a major election - surely?
I am not at all sure I see a solution to the populism problem in voting patterns other than witholding or limiting the opportunity to vote - but is Churchill right?
Dum Spiro Spero
My old friend David contacted me to ask me how I would deal with the problem of people not understanding the issues. The simple answer - I don't see how we can deal with it. My only thought is that we might include the value of the franchise as part of the educational system early on.
ReplyDeleteOther thoughts relate to making voting compulsory as it is in many countries - but perhaps it is a good thing to allow those too lazy or stupid to use their precious and hard-won right to disqualify themselves.
One idea is to earn the right to vote in some way - perhaps by means of community service. The problem is that this is such a slippery slope - disenfranchising anyone means someone has to set the criteria and make the selections. I would not trust anyone with that power!