David in Australia

Dear fellow infidels,

Below is a piece describing why I think we (i.e. every country in the world) should have annual general elections. My "Bible" of democratic thought is A. D. Lindsay's book (from his series of lectures in 1929) called "The Essentials of Democracy". He states: "There is a good deal to be said ... for the view that a modern industrial democratic society, with its oligarchically governed industry and its democratic political structure, is a house divided against itself, and that unless we somehow make our industry more democratic, our politics must become more oligarchic. But it depends on ourselves which of these two things shall happen."

Unfortunately Lindsay does not go as far as to promote annual general elections (AGE's). However to my mind, AGE's would be - amongst MANY other things - a good role model for industry (not to mention home, school, social & civic society, etc etc ... )

Your comments are welcome.

***********************************

Compassion to be effective requires detailed knowledge and understanding of how society works. Any social system in turn requires men and women in it of imagination and goodwill. What would be fatal would be for those with exceptional human insight and concern to concentrate to ministering to individuals, whilst those accepting responsibility for the design and management of organisations were left to become technocrats. What is important is that institutions and their administration be constantly tested against human values, and that those who are concerned about these values be prepared to grapple with the complex realities of modern society as it is.

I consider the "holy trinity" of democracy to be abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia. Why? Because as far as I can tell (and certainly by all the best psychological & personality testing) good people of great compassion, insight, intelligence, enlightenment, social standing, charisma, leadership qualities, etc etc .... can (and do!) disagree about these issues. And, let's admit it, there is simply no compromise possible. This "holy trinity" therefore points to the fact that there will always be issues for which there are two valid "sides" - be it anything from taxation levels right through to where the tax is spent.

How can such conflicy be ultimately resolved? I say quite simply that it can't, and it would be foolish to imagine that it could.

So, let "The People" ultimately be the deciders. If "they" really WANT abortion to be illegal, then so be it. As also with the other two "holy trinity" issues .... or any other issue you would care to debate. Just so long as one has a freedom of speech to campaign (lawfully & non-violently) against these laws.

When I was an undergraduate I remember our psychology 101 class devising a questionaire that indicated where people stood on the issue of abortion. It was out of 200 points and if you scored below 100 you were "pro-life", above 100 you were "pro-choice". Most of the class scored in the 95-110 range. One other person scored 115 and I scored 164. I would have scored higher except some of the questions were phrased rather badly.

Not so long after this I was at a dinner party where the topic of conversation centred around the controversy of the (very) young Irish girl who had been raped and had fallen pregnant from the rape. She was subsequently banned by her government from flying to England to have an abortion. Everyone at the dinner party said "The Irish government *can't* do that." Why was I, probably the most pro choice person in the room, the only person able to argue the case as to why the Irish government could (and indeed should) ban her from flying to England if they saw abortion as murder?

I believe the world just ain't going to get the idea about what democracy is all about until we elevate it to where it belongs - a "secular religion" that gives legitimacy to the laws of the day (as opposed to the legitimacy of any antediluvian "good book" - or leader interpreting said book.)

Voting is our most sacred communal "rite", don't you think? Why don't we do it every year, once a year? Then each country's legislature could pass strongly mandated laws from "The People" that restrict and limit the collateral damage from those most heinous of criminals: the globalised corporations that ignore or try to undermine the host country's own cultural norms.

And no, I do not believe this would lead to an ochlocracy (i.e. "mob rule"). Especially with a strong & encouraged "alternative government" -- and the majoritarian, preferential voting system Australia presently enjoys. May God-Buddha-Allah-Krishna-Jesus-Wagyl (a local Aboriginal Dreamtime Spirit) forbid that we should ever adopt a proportional representation electoral system like Aotearoa New Zealand. Although I would be happier with a unicameral system like they have! (i.e. single-House legislature without an "upper House" - that NZ and many other parts of the world practice.) I do NOT like proportional representation because I do not like "minor parties".

I sincerely believe much of the trouble in the Middle East would be alleviated if Israel had a different electoral system (the Knesset is fully proportional representation and thus a party to form government must form alliances in the legislature with all sorts of weird far-right [usually religious] or far-left political parties).

As you may know, the idea of annual general elections were mooted by the 19th century British "Chartists" who also wanted another 5 major reforms to the British political system of the day, viz:

Universal suffrage
Secret ballot
Equal electoral boundaries
Any man may stand for election to parliament
Parliamentarians to be paid a salary

These last 5 are now "canons of the faith" of democracy, and to the best of my knowledge Australia was the first country in the world to implement them. (You may wish to correct me on this if I am wrong). No country has yet implemented annual general elections.

We have built quite a wonderful House of Democracy in Australia.

However we have yet to learn how to maintain it properly.

The inability to conceive that the other side's stance/argument may have validity is just one of the many small but important negative "mind sets" that would be far more difficult to maintain if we had annual general elections. I believe it would be a catalyst for a "celebration of uncertainty" rather than the present-day (universal) religious festival's denial of it.

I sincerely believe that annual general elections would go a long way to changing how we *all* interact with each other: from nation-to-nation right down to family interactions. Besides the practicalities (greater stability, better responsiveness from legislatures, better long-term planning, better accountability, stronger mandates for change where needs-be, better participation in community policy-making & politics, better deliberation about policies, more dialog about policies, etc etc) .... there is also a very important deep psychological need being addressed here.

What do ALL religions have in common? Annual festivals that inculcate & CELEBRATE their world view.

"The poorest he in England hath as much a life to live as the richest he". So sayeth Colonel Rainboro in 1647 during the Putney debates after the turmoil of the English Civil War. That seems to me the authentic note of democracy. However different men may be in wealth or ability or learning, living their life is their concern and their responsibility. That is for true democrats the real meaning of human equality. It is not a scientific or a common-sense doctrine. It is a religious and moral principle. It is the translation into non-theological language of the spiritual priesthood of all believers. Men who could say things like that (especially in 1647!) have gone deep into the heart of things.

When I imagine annual general elections, I see a land of stability & accountability ..... inculcating the principles of democracy to our youth. Just as ALL traditional "religions" celebrate and commemorate their own "world view" via annual festivals (it must be something in the human psyche Horatio, because they ALL do it), so I also would like to see the "religion" of democracy similarly celebrated and commemorated.

Did you know that the Greek derivative for the word "heretic" means "able to choose"?

In the not too distant past, we handed down to our children the various creeds and dogmas that had been handed down to us. This saved us from having to think too critically - all we had to do was fight (and kill) anyone who challenged them.

Westminster has two red lines separating the two sides of the parliament. The distance apart??? .......

Two broad-swords.

The symbolism here of course is that ideas (and creeds, and dogmas, and philosophies etc) CAN clash, but nobody may be physically injured or restrained for holding and/or expressing them (at least should they be expressed in the parliament through an elected representative).

Outside parliament however the government has the power to use force wherever it deems necessary. Government enforces a monopoly on the use of force so that no other person can use force to settle their differences (i.e. to "take the law into their own hands", as it were). The check & balance to that monopoly however is that if they misuse that force they can be turfed out of office via free, fair and frequent elections.

That annual general elections is a good thing I am "convinced" - in the truly religious sense of the word! The only issue I am uncertain about is .... what would be the best day of the year to hold it?

I am presently leaning towards Good Friday. It's already a holiday in most democratic nations; it's a long weekend so hopefully the election results would be in before the weekend is over; it has a certain symbolic alliance with the Christian festival since there would be a time of "darkness" when no-one was sure of the result; and it would be a "tipping of the hat" towards the Christian heritage (in that modern representative democracy arose within its culture).

Plus of course it follows the historical tradition of Christianity - taking over the main festivals of the day and claiming them for itself!

However, if someone can suggest a better day/date I would love to hear it.

Regards,
David
Perth, Western Australia

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I thought I would also forward a bit of to-and-fro with a good friend on the subject of Majoritarian voting (i.e. one member electorates that require 50% +1 vote to win a seat) v's. Proportional Representation (like Israel). I do hope you might give the idea of annual general elections some serious consideration. I know it is running against the general flow of democratic theory at the moment (everyone wants LONGER terms in Canberra!) I am nevertheless still convinced of it's power. Of course it cannot work until everyone wants it to work (well, most people - at least a solid majority! :-))

At 21:52 03/08/02, my friend wrote (after a discussion the previous night) :-
Dear David,
Methinks you are ignoring the role of the party system in grinding up independents, when there is a 'first past the post' vote; the other problem is the extension of the executive which does pretty much what it wants. Compare this with Tasmanian Hare-Clark, with rotating ballot paper lists (so people are voted on genuine popularity)!

From: David
To: (my friend)
Subject: Re: unbridled democracy
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 18:29:51 +0800
Hello again (my friend),
as you may have guessed I *like* the party system, particulary the two-party system. It brings the best of two competing worlds - ability for change AND a reasonable degree of stability. If independents or minor parties are able to win a seat with majoritarian voting (i.e. one-member electorates where 50% +1 vote is needed to win the seat) then good luck to them. As I said the other night, it is even possible a 'minor' party may become the 'alternative government' (and then the govt) as Labour did at the expense of the Liberals in the UK. However I do not like an electoral system (like Proportional Representation: Hare-Clark or otherwise) that almost *guarantees* independents and minor parties get seats in the legislature and makes it almost impossible for one party to gain an absolute majority on the floor of the legislature. I do however think that a good sized legislature keeps the executive reasonably honest (lots of backbenchers they have to keep happy). And of course annual general elections would assist those who have genuine leadership qualities (and are 'popular') over the party hacks who often get safe seats.

The debate/discussion/dialog that we are having right now is to me the most important question that faces the human race at the moment. The 'Cold War' was essentially the "single-party state" v's the "multi-party state". The latter has more or less won that debate (albeit with a few minor recalcitrants - like China!) The *real* debate now is: "What SORT of multi-party state do we want?"

There are certainly a few different models out there: USA, Britain, NZ, France, Germany, Israel, etc etc.
I *love* Australia's preferential voting (over 'first past the post') Personally I don't like the USA 'separation of legislature & executive' model. And I see no reason to have a 'House of review' - Queensland, NZ & other states get by quite well with only One House. Just so long as there are free, fair & frequent elections ...

*If* we could get annual general elections in, it would be interesting to think of a voting age from, say, 13. Most 'traditional' societies have set 13 as the age of 'adulthood' (and modern psychology has confirmed that around 13 is when all our mental faculties have matured - it's simply the 'school of hard knocks' [i.e. experience] that guides us from there on).

Not only would we have a wonderful annual festival celebrating democratic processes, but also private (or possibly public) "rites of passage" welcoming the young ones into the rights of adulthood (especially the sacred act of voting).

Yeah, I know it's just a dream ... But in the cold hard light of day it's still one I'm happy to hold on to.

Is there any particular reason you so like independents and small parties? Especially since so many of them around the world seem awfully right-wing or fanatical! I honestly believe so much of Israel's problems come from the fact that religious fanatics inevitably seem to hold the balance of power there. Does one have to hold a seat in a legislature to get things done? What about a strong lobby group that gets concessions from either/both major parties before elections, or even working *within* one of the parties? Don't 'balance of power' minorities muddy the waters of accountability?

Anyway, as I said before ... I think this is the *real* debate of today. Let us pray whichever system wins out will be the best for all concerned. In the end I know that's certainly what thee & me and most people want (indeed, who doesn't???!!!)
All the best,
David

At 18:30 06/08/02, (my friend) wrote:
Subject: Re: Democracy is only democracy when minority interests are protected
Dear David,
I can't stand the two party system because it leads to polarity (1940s-1950s) or convergence/mediocrity (our current state). The advantage of a New Zealand system is that issues are more likely to be debated than when one side shoves it through. And in the 2 party system bars are so high, it's almost impossible to get a third force elected.

Although there is some thought that right-wing and left-wing balance each other out, I think that left-wing tend to come up with more ideas and innovations. The right is more likely to implode on its hate, if it doesn't take the rest of us with it.

Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 23:02:56 +0800
To: (my friend)
From: David
Subject: Re: Democracy is only democracy when minority interests are protected
Hello again (my friend),
thanks for continuing this discussion. I'm sure you know deep down that we are both on the "same side" when it comes to matters of worldly import ... we just may disagree somewhat/sometimes on how best to *achieve* the end results we (both) want.

I agree that it's almost impossible to get a third force *elected* - but that's what I like about majoritarian electoral systems! I don't believe it stops minorities or "third forces" from being heard however. Elections are won and lost by a few percentage points. If a minority has a *reasonable* grievance then it is politic for one or both parties to listen to what they want. If it is not seen as reasonable then the parties can shut them out (especially with Australia's wonderful preferential voting system). I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS A BAD THING!!!

One Nation (a far-right political party in Australia) is a good case-in-point. (Both major parties in Australia effectively shut One Nation out at the last Federal election by not giving them ANY preferences on their "how to vote" cards - and One Nation thereby failed miserably).

The minority must look to either how they are putting their message over to the general public (and therefore the major parties) ... OR, re-evaluate the *reasonableness* of the grievance itself. AND/OR the general public will respond to the grievance in some way (in the case of One Nation by better education on the knee-jerk issues the party raises?)

However, if a minority party gains a balance of power in a legislature it can (in my eyes unreasonably) FORCE their agenda upon the majority. Majority interests need to be "protected" as well !!!

One of the main points of having annual general elections is so that things *are* debated more often and more vigorously. In a modern, educated, scientific community debate is a *great thing*. Alas, so many of our fellow citizens tire of it and yearn for "easy answers" - when there are none! Is it any wonder that fundamentalists gain converts all the time? Can you see the *power* of CELEBRATING democratic processes annually?

I have been out on the town with our good friend J.V. and some of her Green friends. I love J.V. dearly and she has a good sense of being able to "agree to differ", but I do wonder about some of her friends who take a hard-line on so many things. Especially EVERYTHING ***MUST*** BE DONE THROUGH CONCENSUS. Which is nice at an organisational level (one can "vote with one's feet" and leave - or be kicked out) but is not only impractical but downright illogical (and wrong) at the government level (where everything is compulsory - you cannot leave or be kicked out). And these are intelligent people as far as I can see!

I also do not believe that convergence is necessarily mediocrity. People are generally happy to use the ballot over the bullet because there *is* a fair amount of convergence - in life. Most people agree about most things most of the time. It's when & where they don't that makes life so interesting (and most people disagree about *some* things *all* the time!!!)

Another point of annual elections is to help "lift the game" - of everyone. It forces people to deliberate about the issues of the day; it guarantees a degree of *moderation* in all things (one can't be tooooo radical); while at the same time helping to extinguish sweep-it-under-the-carpet mediocracy. New Opposition leaders have a chance to learn by their mistakes instead of the party having to cull them after each lost election. (Lose three or four annual elections and maybe and you're out, but that's only one term in today's system.) A party simply can't afford to (read: WON'T!) hang onto a leader after even two electoral losses when the terms are three or four years between elections.

Thee & me may continue to disagree over this issue until that Great & Terrible Day (or whatever :-)). Let us remember that those things which unite us are FAR greater than those things which divide us. You are a good man my friend and I am always happy to be in your company.

Heretically yours,
David

Toto

The idea of voting on a constitutional right (like privacy, which includes the right to have an abortion) is definitely un-American.

But other than that I can't find a real church state issue here. I think that this will do better in the Politics Forum.