Thanks to a particularly awesome episode of Yes Minister available on the BBC Iplayer service, I have been pondering the importance of continuity in government.
Can a democracy provide enough stability when the government is changing every three years? Or even every five years for that matter.
Can the government actually have a significant impact when it has to first undo the changes made by a previous government and then appoint new directors to state departments who have little over two years to get their department in shape good enough for an election?
It would almost seem that a Liberal or Western Democracy is scared of itself. It relies on the people to elect officials, who are then subject to a barrage of public scrutiny just as they have started getting things moving in the direction they want them to. We are so afraid of the wrong people getting in power that we do not give the right people enough time. Surely this does not foster good governance? Surely it fosters superficial governance?
I offer you this quote from Alexis de Tocqueville: The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.
Surely that is the issue with democracy today? That instead of using public money to further the country, governments spend too much money bribing the public. Tax cuts may be nice, but they are not a long term solution to any problem.
At least in a Dictatorship, if the dictator spends enough money keeping a few key supporters happy, the dictator can spend the rest on long term projects, happy in the knowledge that they will still be in power when their 20 year plan comes to a close.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think limits on power are necessary. I generally believe in Lord Acton's dictum that 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
ReplyDeleteBut what do you mean by 'stability?' In my view, there is nothing unstable about democracy here in New Zealand, and we have elections every three years. Besides the neoliberal policies in the eighties, do you think that there has been significant difference between governments?
In New Zealand, department executives are, in theory, supposed to serve faithfully the government of the day, no matter which party is the government. Department executives are not political appointees. They are in the United States, however, which can completely change the focus of federal government departments for good or bad.
In the United States there are clearly political differences between the two main parties. But are these differences such that a transition between Presidents causes instability?
Will a dictator spend surplus money on long term projects, or on himself? (Perhaps he needs a new car or an iPod Touch?)
Gosh you do make life interesting Amir. Normally I just talk and people nod their heads and walk away whispering behind my back. Here I actually have to try to justify myself ;)
ReplyDeleteSome of my more obtuse arguments are more to get a reaction, as opposed to stating personal opinions. So I have to say that you are bang on when you say you think that limits on power are necessary. I'm not a gambler who is going to risk the future of a country on a 10 in a 100 chance that the next person to come to power is going to be able to handle the fact that she can do anything.
Apologies for that sentence about stability and democracy, not sure what I was on for those few words, but it must have been something strong as what I said was completely out of context. What I mean is that liberal democracies can be too stable and can prevent a government from having the balls, so to speak, to be able to make any significant changes, lest they fail in the next election.
Dictatorship represents the other extreme, the extreme that democracy guards against. It represents a small group of people with ultimate power to do good or evil. A small group of people who never watched Spiderman 1 and heard Uncle Ben(Not ME) say "With great power, comes great responsibility" (or if they did see it they switched off for that part). Proponents for Dictatorship as a model of government rely too heavily on the idea of a benevolent dictator. Glossing over the fact that many dictators are not really that benevolent.
Now I just ran away to get something to snack on so I may have lost the flow of my argument. But my closing point is that Dictatorship and democracy both suck. As neither will fit any state perfectly. There is no one solution.
It cannot be said unanimously that Democracy provides better governance or dictatorship provides better stability, because it aint true. Every country needs its own ideology. Not one theorized by a bunch of university professors from the other side of the world. The best we can do is to try to understand why this model works in this particular culture, but trying not to make the mistake of assuming that this model will work elsewhere.
I see. It is quite difficult on the internet to figure out if someone is stating personal opinion or merely trying to encourage debate. So I apologise for replying too strongly.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, you continue to post excellent ideas.
I like this quote by Winston Churchill, which is a good summary: 'Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.'
If authoritarian rulers could be trusted to rule for the common good then I would support said ruler. Plato's 'philosopher kings' (critiqued in the Dahl reading) would be excellent rulers, except that such a person to fill that role does not exist, and never will.
In trying to ascertain what form of rule is best, I think pragmatism/common sense is the order of the day. Authoritarian rule worked in Singapore but not in other countries; democracy flourishes (relatively) in the West, but hasn't proved so successful in the Middle East (for example).
But given what I know, I would prefer to live in a democracy, as I'm sure all people would.
Ben's case here seems quite confusing to me, but nevertheless I shall attempt to give my two cents.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with him regarding the downsides of having such short terms, and the tendancy of governments to spend large portions of their terms bribing the public in order to get re-elected rather than focusing on things in the long-term interest of the country.
Ben's example of tax cuts is a good one. Heading into a recession, the government's priority seems to be on cutting the budget wherever it can in order to make tax cuts feasible, rather than focusing on the job at hand.
How could this problem be solved though? Increasing the length of terms seems to be the best way, but there is no guarantee that would solve the problem, and how long a term is ideal? One would continually increase the gap between elections in order to allow governments to have more time to initiate reform without worrying about pleasing the public, and before long you have a dictatorship. Furthermore, lengthening terms reduces the power of the people to vote truly corrupt and incompetent leaders out of office.
Finding the balance then seems key. Unless one looked towards Plato's 'philosopher kings' or benevolent dictators such as Lee Kwan Yew, who do seem to be the ideal type of ruler, but just how frequently does one find them? Almost never.
And so we are stuck with what we have. It seems most people would rather have shorter terms to ensure a strong democracy, but at the cost of having truly effective governance.
It seems that Western states support democracies which is in line with the generalsation that Western society is better educated and therefore individuals are more aware and involved with the government/ politics of their country.
ReplyDeleteConversely, states which tend to be non-democractic have a generally uneducated population where strong or charismatic leaders take to power. There often seem to be weaknesses within the state also, for example an ethnically or religiously splintered population or lack of national identity (eg. Singapore before Lee).
The points about short term democractic governments are interesting - the elections in a modern democracy are almost populist and in reference to a recent lecture - what you think is good for yourself may not necessarily be for the good of society. At risk of being too opinionated and unjustified: do democratic governments plan and implement the measures to make countries better places for society as a whole (and future generations) or is government just a 'powertrip' which comes into power due to popular promises or as an alternative to one other party only providing short term outcomes beneficial for only a few in society.
A loosely relevant quote to describe the shortcomings of elections in a democractic society- Philippe Schmitter and Terry Karl:
ReplyDeletehowever central to democracy, elections occur intermittently and only allow citizens to choose between the highly aggregated alternatives offered by political parties, which can, especially in the early stages of democratic transition proliferate in a bewildering variety."
That's a nice quote from Schmitter and Karl, HKQ, though it would seem to point to the need for more avenues of contestation than elections, no?
ReplyDelete