A Failing System?
Examining the value of electoral democracies
J. A. McCreery
Who is to blame for the failures of governmental rule? The inevitable caveat of this question: that one believes there is a shortcoming, or deficiency, in their nation’s leadership. Alas, such disenchantment is prevalent in Australia and appears to be increasing in recent years. British political scientist Gerry Stoker reifies this through his co-authored paper Trust and Democracy in Australia wherein he finds:
“Sixty per cent of Australians believe that the honesty and integrity of politicians is very low. Furthermore, the one issue that appears to unite most Australians is complaining about their politicians.”
Such distrust is not unfounded, a history of embezzlement, misuse of funds and corruption pervades even the most advanced societies in the world. A recent estimate put the annual cost of bribery alone at about $2 trillion (roughly 2% of global GDP) yet the overall economic and social costs of corruption are likely to be even larger, since bribes constitute only one aspect of the possible forms of corruption – IMF report, Corruption: Costs and Mitigating Strategies.
This circles back to the initial question, who is to blame for this perceived and often real failing of our authorities. The politicians? The people which instate them? The structures which support them?
Politicians are made out to conduct the running of nations as a ‘game’, the ‘game of politics’, raising individuals out of the shadows to, when their agenda suits, mercilessly fell them in a storm of controversy. Although this is often the case, the forced examination of political figures, their scandals, slips, and affairs, suffuses our media, pushing a narrative of personal incompetence rather than systemic diseray. Who is to say that our current system is sustainable, or even right? So often people are guilty of championing the election process simply to condemn the every action of those that are elected.
The glorified institution of electoral democracy must be challenged.
The most often highlighted pitfall of the electoral system is the political instability it incurs. Leaders change at the whims of the people, cohesive structure, direction and intent are derailed by constant switches or the need to campaign and counter-campaign in order to stay in power. Decisive decisions become ruled by archaic structures and short term political conditions. Take Brexit for example, Belgian cultural historian David Van Reybrouck comprehensively highlights its place as an exemplification of a disjointed system:
“Never before has such a drastic decision been taken through so primitive a procedure – a one-round referendum based on a simple majority. Never before has the fate of a country – of an entire continent, in fact – been changed by the single swing of such a blunt axe, wielded by disenchanted and poorly informed citizens.”
The threat to society does not lie with democracy itself but the devolvement towards reducing it to consensus or majority based voting. Is this civic duty, an act performed quickly and often misguidedly by the masses, whereby individual gut feelings are turned into shared priorities, really the mode we accept to ensure the prosperity, wellbeing and integrity of nations? The belief that elections are a doctrine, a precondition to democracy in and of themselves, requires dismantling. Such an entrenched electoral fundamentalism runs deep and can only prove blinding, pushing a hazy so-called justness onto a flawed system.
The need for expression and consensus are nevertheless essential and Reybrouck offers a solution in the form of Athenian sortition. Under this system a random sample of the population is drafted and their competency examined, ensuring they come to understand the subject matter in order to make informed, logical decisions. Renaissance states such as Venice and Florence worked on the same basis and experienced centuries of political stability.
“A cross-section of society that is informed can act more coherently than an entire society that is uninformed.”
Although it may remedy the ills of current electoral processes, flaws still pervade this system and likely any other which can possibly be put forward. In the end, tight regulation, accountability, transparency and an intangible altruistic intent is required in government so they may best protect and further the rights of their people.