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.