If It's Broken, Fix It.

  Clearly, politics is increasingly becoming a depressing subject for most of us. Voter turnout, a prime indicator of how engaged people feel in the political process, was an abysmal 36.4% in last year's US mid-term elections, hitting a 72-year low. In Canada, the numbers are better, hovering around 60% over the past few elections, but this number has been steadily declining for some time. People are losing faith that their votes will make any difference, and when one looks at how the health of our democracies has been eroded over the past few decades, it becomes easy to understand why.

  The definitions of a “healthy democracy” vary, but there are a number of agreed-upon indicators, as well as a number of common-sense factors that are often used as benchmarks. Generally, democracies are defined by the degree to which the citizenry have control over the political decision making process, by having no unreasonable restrictions against those seeking to represent the people, and by ensuring the freedoms of the people. The people, of course, are of paramount concern, and so it should follow that any democratic government is therefore obliged to create institutions and policies that benefit the public in as broad a way as possible, both in the short and long term. Further, there are many varieties of democracy in the world, and each has its strengths and weaknesses, but given that the world has only seen democracy truly flourish in the last century, we are still learning as a global society what works, and what doesn't. Often, nations have implemented policies that looked good on paper, but in practice had seriously negative side effects, and therefore we must learn from these mistakes, while working to cultivate and develop those policies which have proven beneficial. Creating a healthy democracy is an ongoing process, and so the key point to take away is that we must not allow our democracies to become ossified and inflexible. “Change”, so often a rallying cry for political parties, is not just a talking point to be forgotten after election day, but must be built into any democracy that hopes to survive and thrive long-term in a rapidly changing world. As with evolution, is it not the strongest society that survives (read: the one with the biggest sticks), but the one most adaptive to change.

  Today's democracies have come far, and certainly have much to be proud of, but some very serious problems have crept into the political machinery, which erode our democratic institutions, create a cynical distrust within the electorate, and threaten to derail so much of our progress. Voters are not ignorant of these issues, and overwhelmingly want them addressed. However, the political will has been lacking, leading in turn to an even greater gulf between the citizens and the government, one that will grow until solutions are found. Most of you are probably familiar (at least in passing) with these problems. Here I speculate on some potential solutions.

  Firstly, while it is the citizenry that should ultimately be directing the political process, in the last few decades it has become the corporations that are doing so, both directly and indirectly. As time goes on, this is only becoming more prevalent and problematic, and as a result, policies are now often designed with corporate interests foremost in mind, even if they are detrimental to the public good. It should be obvious that this has to stop, and for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious of these is that (despite what some courts may have been bribed into ruling) corporations are not people. The very idea of “corporate personhood” is a rather absurd one, and yet it is an idea that we have allowed to mold the public sphere for decades. While corporations are not given all of the rights that individuals are under the law, they are given equivalency in many areas, and this actually puts individuals at a disadvantage, as individuals typically lack the resources of large corporations, making it impossible to face them in expensive civil lawsuits, for example.

  Just as it is wise to erect a wall of separation between church and state, so too is it wise to erect a wall between market and state, because the pursuit of the common good can be corrupted just as readily by either. The job of government, in the end, is ultimately to guard our common resources and use them to build mutually beneficial infrastructure. However, when corporations are allowed leeway to plunder public resources and infrastructure for their private gain or run public institutions for profit, the public is always the loser in the end. Corporate interests are not public interests, and this distinction needs to be codified into law. Mixing money and politics results only in corruption, and those who claim otherwise are either shockingly naive, or corrupted themselves.

  Secondly, the means by which we as citizens participate in our democracy must evolve with the times. Even though we now live in the Information Age, our voting methods are still archaic, and we do not take advantage of technology as we should, as a means of monitoring and directing the stewards of our nations. As a result, many people feel disconnected, or entirely divorced from the political process. Electing a representative every few years may have been the best we could do in terms of making the government accountable to the public and enforcing our will up until now, but we have the means to do better moving forward. Polls regarding policy can be conducted in real time online, and thus, if we were to make snap elections a legal possibility past a certain threshold of public demand, politicians would become accountable not just every election cycle, but every day. This sort of public accountability is key in providing a bulwark against corruption, and in ensuring the sort of flexibility that a healthy government must possess.

  A combination of technology and policy could also help to make us more informed and engaged citizens...the burden is, after all, not only on the politicians, but on ourselves. The highlights of legislation should be readily available to all citizens in an easily accessible central location, as should be the core policy and voting history of every political party and party representative. Providing this, along with incentives for involvement, would be a recipe for a better, stronger democracy. Many countries ensure that voting days are holidays, to allow time for even the poorest shift-worker to cast a ballot, and some go so far as to fine those who do not participate. While I am more a fan of the carrot than of the stick, sometimes even the healthiest democracy has to use a little of both to nudge the public in the right direction now and then. After all, an informed and involved public is the best shield against tyranny and corruption that there is.

  Thirdly, the concept of the party system itself is long overdue for an overhaul. Just as public participation ties into ensuring that public (and not corporate) welfare is the focus of public policy, so too does the structure of political systems tie into ensuring civil and representative participation. In the past, parties served the dual purpose of rallying like-minded individuals together and of funding those candidates deemed most likely to win in a race. Now, however, both of these functions have become outmoded via technology, and political parties serve more to factionalize the population than anything else. In the US in particular, having only two parties means that people often do not vote for ideas or for a strong platform (as they should) but mostly vote out of habit or out of “clan loyalty” even when they are frequently doing so against their own interests. Political parties by their very nature facilitate an “Us versus Them” mentality, which, in any political system, leads almost inevitably to gridlock and dysfunction. Two-party systems especially are susceptible to this, as there is no room for middle ground, and the past few years are clear evidence of just how bad this can get. Fundamentally, we all have similar needs and similar goals for our society, so there has to be a better way to find consensus.

  So, if party affiliations are an obstacle, why have parties at all? Like-minded individuals no longer need to go to a physical location in order to rally, nor do they need a party – they merely need a sensible platform, a candidate to facilitate it, and an internet connection to do the rest. Funding, likewise, can be handled online, with politicians running Kickstarter-inspired campaigns...at least until we can do away with money in politics entirely. The future of functional democracies, as I see it, must become party-free, and may the candidates with the best ideas win. As I see it, independents are inherently more trustworthy, because they are riding on their own platform and reputation alone, rather than any political party's. This would also tidily eliminate “habit voting”, and encourage people to be more informed.

  Our democracies can get better. Although the challenge looms large, improving them is not beyond us. We just need to muster the collective will, and elect leaders who won't shy away from the task. It seems fairly obvious that the status quo isn't cutting it, right? Winston Churchill put it best: “Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others that have been tried.” Surely, having come so far, we are ready to iron out some of the bugs, and come up with something even better.