Democracy - a cruel joke, or our only chance?

Hitler was elected. George W Bush was elected (well, sort of). Tony Blair was elected. It maybe unfair to lump those three together, but then life’s not fair is it? Even in a democracy. If Democracy is such a good leadership philosophy why are there so many important institutions not run democratically? Autocratic institutions abound in democracies. Institutions where quick and decisive action is required are usually autocratic as it takes too long to have a vote. Institutions where considered and qualified debate or expertise are required can be autocratic as not everyone can be an expert in everything. Both extremes of the spectrum.

Think of it another way. You need brain surgery. Shall we vote for who gets to do it, or would you prefer a qualified surgeon? You need to be protected from an invader. Shall we vote how is best to do that, or shall we get the Army in? Yet rather than vote in someone qualified to run, say, the Department for Education, the Prime Minister gets to appoint an elected Member of Parliament. Some would say that those in the Civil Service are the qualified ones, and they can guide policy. But they don’t get to choose policy, only work out how to make it work. Taking advice is one thing, but how many politicians get expert advice before they choose their platforms, let alone before they are put in charge of departments? The Civil Service goes in the direction where Ministers point.

Even organizations set up along democratic lines have built in autocratic tendencies. Take for example the United Nations Security Council. It has five permanent members. When a vote is taken in the Security Council, each of these five members has the power of veto. The veto is not a tool of democracy, it is a tool against it – so why was this measure included in the UN charter? Because it allows these five members (the winners of the Second World War) to make sure that they can’t be forced to do something they don’t want to by the majority. It doesn’t sound like a resounding endorsement of Democracy to me. It is a fight between the recognition of the ‘fairness’ of Democracy against the idea that these five nations won’t be dictated to. But Democracy means that the majority can and should be allowed to dictate to the minority. And I’ve not even mentioned that ambassadors to the UN are appointed, not elected.

So is Democracy really anything more than institutionalized mob rule? Doesn’t Democracy just give the majority authority to make the minority obey? The problem being that once the elections are over, the electorate become the minority, while the elected become the majority, until the next election. We like to fool ourselves that the elected were voted for after an enlightened debate on the issues, not the personalities or personal histories, and actually work for us. Is that really true? After all we don’t vote to decide what happens, we vote for the people who decide what happens, usually based on general allegiances, not specific actions promised by the candidates. In effect, we vote for the least worst option, as it’s unlikely that we support every policy of any party. Is that the best way to run a country? The check is supposed to be that if they don’t do what the electorate wants, they get voted out. But after they’ve had the opportunity to do the damage…and who do we vote for instead of them?

Democracy is seen as the best option as the majority does not trust the minority (whether qualified or not) to make decisions on their behalf. The majority are simply not willing to risk relinquishing the authority. The image of the majority treated as children who need to be told what they can and can’t do is akin to modern day accusations of the nanny state destroying civil liberties in debates about the rights and wrongs of public smoking. Where do you draw the line? If you ban smoking on health grounds, should you not ban unhealthy foods? Then other unhealthy activities, starting with extreme sports, perhaps? “It’s for your own good” only allows you to go so far. Democracy as an ideal requires the involvement of all, at a level of understanding that simply does not exist in today’s world, based on an understanding of the ‘common good’. Many chose not to be involved, by not voting, or by not looking deeper than general party lines. Can Democracy be effective in a world where not everyone is even willing to take part? Is it the desire to retain power but relinquish responsibility? To be taken care of up to a certain point and then left alone? Democracy, however, does not cater for the individual unless they form a part of the majority. Individual ideas of where the line is drawn become an average, as abstract as the idea of the average person, of average height, weight and hair colour.

Power corrupts, they say. Does it corrupt elected officials any less than anyone else? Was Britain any better or worse under the rule of a powerful monarchy? Or do we just like democracy so we can say “well, he was bad, but next time we’ll vote in someone better.” Or is democracy just a way of limiting the amount of time someone has to do damage before we can get rid of them and vote for someone else? Is Democracy in fact just a damage limitation exercise?

And how exactly do you square Democracy with Capitalism? Capitalism is all about the pursuit and accumulation of wealth, and by necessity taking it or withholding it from others. Capitalism is necessarily selfish and about the betterment of individuals. Democracy is about inclusion – one person, one vote, everybody having their say. When it comes down to it, which is a priority – Democracy or Capitalism? Looking at the world today where the most powerful countries struggle, not to spread Democracy, but to work in their own best interests (interests mostly measured in terms of Capitalism and it’s apparatus) sometimes at the expense of Democracy (how many democratically elected governments are there that powerful nations refuse to even acknowledge?) it seems Capitalism comes first. Is it like the rich man who says money isn’t everything? Do you need to be a successful Capitalist society before Democracy can really take hold? Is it unreasonable to expect the less powerful nations to be successful in terms of Democracy, when they aren’t successful Capitalists? Does a Capitalist society encourage or discourage, support or erode Democracy?

Someone famous said that Democracy is the worst political system in the world – except for all the others. Perhaps that’s right. Perhaps it’s as close as we can get to a perfectly fair system. I’m not so sure. I look at the world around me and it doesn’t shout out “DEMOCRACY IS BEST!” It shouts “MONEY IS BEST!” Maybe it’s a problem of self-promotion. Shouldn’t we strive to find a better way? Maybe what could be better is a benign dictatorship. Someone who is qualified to do the job rather than some smug, soulless popularity contest winning politician in bed with powerful lobby groups or religious factions. The problem is that no-one who would be good at the job could ever get it. Even if they wanted it. In a Groucho Marx sort of way, anyone who did want the job by definition shouldn’t get it (along the lines of “I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member”). So how do you even attempt to get someone who is qualified? You can’t just take out an ad in the paper. Who decides what qualifications are required? Would I trust someone installed as an absolute ruler? Not unless it’s me, frankly. And if I wouldn’t, I can’t expect anyone else to. Would I trust them any less than I trust some of our current batch of elected representatives?

Now that’s a tougher one to answer. But will I vote? You’re damn right I will.