Democrazy
When you think about it, democracy is really the tyranny of the majority. It is where the majority gets to impose it’s will on the minority, regardless of what is right or proper. This was made obvious to me in 1999 when Labour campaigned on introducing extra taxes for the “rich” (ostensibly to improve health), knowing that the majority would support this. Essentially, the majority voted to take another $3000 a year out of my pocket. Now the number of people in that tax bracket has tripled and it is getting harder for governments to turn that clock back.
Least you think I may have sour grapes about this, I am actually quite philosophical about it – it is the price you pay for living in a democratic country. And there is no doubt that living in a democratic country is infinitely preferable to anything else on offer. As Winston Churchill is reputed to have said ” Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others”.
What brings on my philosophical musings on democracy is the “March for Democracy” that took place in Auckland yesterday. I will skip the re-ignition of the debate on smacking except to note that I get VERY tired of the “misleading question” complaint. Matt McCarten is complaining how the referendum question was really a version of “who’s against responsible parenthood and warm apple pie?”. He would have liked the question to run as:
““Do you support allowing anyone who happens to become a parent the unfettered right to give the baby or the child the bash whenever they feel it’s appropriate and requiring that everyone else mind their own business?””
I have seen this re-wording ploy an absurd number of times. Apparently it seems to escape most people’s attention that the re-worded versions are generally far more manipulative than the original referendum question. All of them are worded in the most pejorative and biased way possible.
One of the nice things about democracy is that we all get to voice our opinions, but some of us need to remember that democracy means that the majority rules. Which brings me to the referendum.
As I have pointed out Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. The main thing that stops democracy disintegrating into simple mob-rule, is that we limit the power of the majority to one vote every three years. Sure, the wise politician (are there any?) will keep an eye on the feelings of the majority during his/her tenure, but there is really only one vote that counts. This is where binding referenda step onto dangerous ground. It is not so much that the questions can be manipulated, or that the process can be hi-jacked by lobby groups, as the editor of the Sunday Herald posits. After all parliament manipulates words and is infested by lobbyists. No. The real problem is that such a direct democracy is entirely directionless and self-interested. The editor of the Herald points to the perilous example of California:
“Binding referendums would simply magnify the potential for damage to good governance. Administrations trying to develop coherent public policy could easily have their hands tied by pre-emptive plebiscites. That’s what’s happened in California, where three decades of tax revolt, starting with the infamous Proposition 13 in 1978, have brought the state to the brink of bankruptcy. As the Economist has noted, it has “launched an entire industry of signature-gatherers and marketing strategists [who] circumscribe what representatives can do by deciding many policies directly”.”
Direct democracy cannot, by definition, have a vision or direction behind it’s strategy. It is entirely focussed on a single issue all the time. For this reason, the law of unintended consequences is particularly vicious in this regard. Worse still, most people have little or no idea of the realities of economics and often fail to use even a modicum of common sense. In California. the people kept reducing taxes while insisting on the same level of funding activity from government – bankruptcy is an inevitability in this situation. It is not that the man in the street is especially dumb; just that the tight focus of a referendum makes it harder to see the consequences without stepping back and looking at the wider picture – and who bothers to do that?
Matt McCarten voices his support for binding referenda and then proceeds to illustrate just why we should fear them:
“My dilemma and vested interest is that my union, Unite, is sponsoring a citizen-initiated referendum to lift the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and then in steps to 66 per cent of the average wage. If enough New Zealanders sign our petition, I like the fact the Government then has to send a voting paper to the nearly three million registered voters asking if they support the minimum wage for workers going up. I’d be delighted if we won the vote: Parliament would be required to pass a law raising the minimum wage.”
Sadly, Matt cannot see the disastrous unemployment rate that would be precipitated by such a policy. Scarily, it is easy to envisage that such a referendum might easily attract a majority vote, guaranteeing New Zealand a similar future to California’s.
There are many other ways of providing participatory democracy in a system of triennial voting. Lobby groups are an obvious one. Binding referenda initiated by the government (such as the one on MMP) are another. Perhaps the simplest way of deactivating the smacking debate is by holding a binding referendum on the repeal of section 59 itself. Or offering a yes/no question on the Burrows amendment.
My personal favorite is to allow private citizens to add to the member’s bills (you would have to ensure each bill met strict criteria of format and possibly require an attached petition to discourage the crazies). Giving politicians something more concrete that a “we want this” has got to be more likely to evoke a reasonable response, rather than a knee-jerk reaction. Private citizen bills would also be considerably less threatening than binding referenda.
Democracy is not mob rule. But it is a tyranny and, as such, must be used with a great deal of care. There have to be limits to the voice of the people, least the voice overwhelm good reason. But let it not be that the voice of the people is only heard once every three years. Because that is also a tyranny. And not one we can tolerate.
Related posts:
- Democrazy (part 2) In part 1 of this post I pointed out how...
- Democrazy (Part 3) In part one of this series I discussed how the...
- Asset Wails Dear Mr. McCarten You seem to be a bit up...
- The First Day of Christmas On the first day of Christmas John Key gave to...
7 Comments
Leave A ReplyOne Trackback/Ping
- Democrazy (part 2) | MacDoctor — [...] part 1 of this post I pointed out how democracy is prevented from becoming mob rule by the devolution ...
Nov 23 09 7:00 am
Which is why democracy needs to be conditional to meeting a criteria.
Something like needing to be paying more in taxes that one recieves in government money to get a vote.
Hell, even a simple quiz on the voting paper would go a long way!
Anything to weed out the ‘bread & circuses’ voters!
Nov 23 09 7:47 am
One of the surprising things is that we’ve never had a referendum on the question “Should government policies be directed mainly towards getting NZ back to the top third of the OECD economic ladder?”.
The reason why 75% of us would vote against that is we would have to cut government spending
JC
Nov 23 09 1:47 pm
“As I have pointed out Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.”
Yep.
“The main thing that stops democracy disintegrating into simple mob-rule, is that we limit the power of the majority to one vote every three years.”
Strongly disagree.
What stops society disintegrating is that the majority of the population falls somewhere in the middle on important issues, and that those who disagree with the majority are still prepared to live with majority rule, where this demographic structure doesn’t exist, ie where the population is divided into two antagonistic groups, for example along tribal lines, democracy doesn’t work. this tolerance of those we disagree with is a facet of the “loyal opposition” Pablo was banging on about (and why he’s wrong in labeling opposition to Obama as “disloyal”).
The Swiss do have a functioning form of direct democracy and it works well, but like every other form of governance it needs, and has, systems and a structure that make it work.
Nov 23 09 8:14 pm
Andrew W: What stops society disintegrating is that the majority of the population falls somewhere in the middle on important issues, and that those who disagree with the majority are still prepared to live with majority rule
I think you will find history shows that as soon as there is a power vacuum people turn into a feral mob. It is the devolution of direct democracy to a limited power structure that allows democracy to work.
Nov 23 09 10:24 pm
“I think you will find history shows that as soon as there is a power vacuum people turn into a feral mob.”
Who’s talking about an absence of a structure of governance?
“It is the devolution of direct democracy to a limited power structure that allows democracy to work.”
As I said, direct democracy, like any other form of governance, needs systems and a structure to make it work. Direct democracy doesn’t mean anarchy, you still have people appointed to manage governments business.
Nov 24 09 9:01 am
wise politician
Now there’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
I have seen a convincing argument which says that an absolute monarchy would be a lesser evil than democracy. It took me a while to get my head around that one! I’ve quoted the argument here:
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/the-problem-with-democracy-part-one/
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/democracy-is-dictatorship-a-response-to-bob-mccoskries-letter/
.-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Right to silence under threat =-.
Nov 25 09 4:11 pm
I took part in the march. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to release that successive governments have treated voters with utter contempt except for a short time leading up to the election. However, identifying a problem is a lot easier than finding the solution.
Many people, myself included, thought that MMP would make for a more representative government and more democratic system. I think many of those have been disappointed. There is no perfect system including binding CIR. Every system has its pluses and minuses.
What I find disappointing is that none of the existing political parties are prepared to at least seriously look at alternatives like allowing some form of binding referenda on some stand alone issues that have normally been decided on a free vote or a conscience vote. Another alternative is the reestablishment of a second house as proposed by Muriel Newman.
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=882
I have heard many arguments about the drawbacks of CIR. Many are valid. I attended a lecture be Richard Ekins, hosted by the Maxim Institute. The link to his paper is below.
A Government for the People: The value of representative democracy
http://www.maxim.org.nz/files/pdf/a_government_for_the_people.pdf
One of Ekins’ ideas is that politicians are honourable and wise and make decisions that are good for the country as a whole and do not just pander to militant pressure groups. If only he was right. I am sure most MPs go into Parliament with the best intentions and there are a few that are very trustworthy. Unfortunately, it does not take long for most to compromise their principles. It would not be easy to argue for legislation you do not genuinely believe in. However, this is necessary particularly in the larger parties.
Under FPP there was some rationale to allow conscience votes on such things as the anti-smacking legislation and lowering the drinking age. The theory was that MPs were answerable to their electorate. However, if an MP had a strong majority because the seat was a strong Labour or National seat the MP usually did not have much to worry about. It was a different story in marginal electorates. Under MMP half the MPs are only answerable to their party.
It would be good if some politicians responded to this topic on this blog. I would also like to see what Bob McCroskie, Colin Craig and Larry Baldock think on this issue. I have some problems with Baldock’s proposal. Amending legislation has the same problem as initiating it – the wording. I would like to see what has traditionally been decided by a conscience vote to have to be ratified by a binding referendum acting like a second house. If politicians knew their legislation had to pass a second hurdle they would likely take submissions to a select committee more seriously.