Democrazy (part 2)

In part 1 of this post I pointed out how democracy is prevented from becoming mob rule by the devolution of power to parliament – allowing the people their full say only once every three years. It is for this reason that I think direct democracy efforts such as binding referenda are doomed to fail. It is too easy to take short-sighted, self-centered positions and ignore their eventual consequences.

The opposite side of that coin is the abuse of borrowed power by parliament to inflict laws that the majority disagree with. The case in point is, of course, the repeal of section 59 which, as I have blogged on several occasions, has contrived to make a normal household activity illegal, rendering large numbers of perfectly law-abiding citizens law-breakers. The poor way that this has been addressed – by bland reassurances and severely inadequate reviews – is typical of most democratic governments. Parliament usually responds to the real concerns of people with “quick fixes” that do not really address the problem or concern, but give the appearance of addressing the issue. Another perfect example would be the microchipping of dogs which achieved precisely nothing in terms of reducing dog attacks. More subtly, the Meningitis vaccination campaign and the Herceptin issue were also quick “fixes”, the latter at least being mercifully cheap in total health bill terms.

Knee-jerk regulations and fiat money are just two of the ways that governments maintain the illusion that they are listening to the people, when they are, in fact only really paying attention to their ideology. Eventually, in the life of a government, it becomes obvious to all that the government is interested only in ideology. As the illusion of consultativeness crumbles, the government starts to appear “tired” and “stale”. Eventually it seems “out of fresh ideas” and is voted out of office. Time on the opposition benches will allow them the opportunity to repackage their ideology in a new way.

Least you think I might be being a bit hard on governments in general, you should consider the meaning of elections. The majority of people vote for a party not because of specific policy but because they feel comfortable with the ideology. How many right-wingers (and the name says it all) bellyaches about dead rats throughout the election but still voted for National, simply because they couldn’t bear the thought of another three years of Labour? These ideological voters are the “core voters” of any party and rarely change parties.

The rest are a significant minority of voters who are attracted by policy (and what that policy means for them). It is these voters that a party has to attract if it wants to be in government. It is these voters who are turned off by naked ideology. If you voted for National in the last election but don’t think Kiwirail and/or the power companies should be sold yesterday, you are probably one of these voters. You are why John Key has not yet sold the aforementioned. You are also why the Cullen fund and Kiwisaver still exist, and why students are still getting interest-free loans.

A clever politician will try to hang on to the swing voter by making ideologically driven changes slowly. John Key seems quite bright and that will be almost certainly why the radical changes that Dr. Brash and Roger Douglas are suggesting will not happen. Key knows he can retain power and get the changes he ultimately wants through by doing it very slowly. In Bill English’s folksy parlance – “don’t scare the horses”. This is precisely how Clark worked in the first six years of her government. I suspect her heart became set on the UN job early in her third term, as she allowed ideology to finally drown out common sense – always the death knell for any government.

The swing voters are therefore the damper rods of democracy, ensuring governments do not swing wildly across the ideological divide. Interestingly, in a very real way, it is they who determine the direction of the government (at least initially), ensuring that the potential tyranny of parliament is moderated. Although most of the policies they vote for are really window-dressing over the basic ideology of the governing parties, at least that ideology is restricted and cannot easily be followed to non-sensical and irresponsible solutions.

Democracy is a curious thing.

Related posts: