On the Self-Corrupting Nature of Electioneering - And a
Democratic Alternative
Guy A. Duperreault,
There are Three Malevolent Aspects of Electioneering
The failure of the parliamentary process due to
corruption, and the eventual symptoms of that failure, begin with
the electoral process itself: by its structure, the process of
getting elected populates parliament with tainted goods, regardless
the integrity and honesty and goodness of the individuals entering
the electioneering forum. There are three endemically malevolent
aspects of any electoral process built around electioneering. They
are: the roles of money, good intentions and power.
There are alternatives to the current voting system. After
examining why a government's failings begin long before power is
won by and entrusted to the "winning" party I suggest one that
reduces all the significant corrupting influences of our current
voting system.
The First Malevolence
The first and most obvious electioneering malevolence is that it
requires money to get elected. While a party and its candidates may
receive the majority of its funds from John and Jane Canuck, the
largest individual donations come from collectives, the main ones
being business and organized labour. Limiting the size of donations
will curtail this problem - but only as far as under-the-table
perks and the promise of lucrative post-government corporate
appointments. These corporate collectives buy the voice and
obligation of the candidate and in the process mutes John and Jane
Canuck's democratic voice. This role of money in the voting process
perverts any democracy into an oligarchy.
The muted Canadian electorate is frustrated because its
expressed distrust of big business's apparent goal of Americanizing
Canada and organized labour's apparent goal of socializing Canada
is not being heard by MP's, MLA's or city officials. Some might say
- especially the media! - that the news media are John and Jane's
voice. And maybe once they were. Unfortunately today's corporate
media has, for the most part, long since abdicated that important
and difficult function for the easier role of outing political
"scandals", spouting inconsequential homilies about political
parties listening to the voter on election day, and selling stock
portfolios and the value of American-style "free" market economics.
Their corporate ownership structure aligns it with the
beneficiaries of the oligarchy. The media is now a part of the
oligarchy, and a significant one.
Given the role money plays in getting elected, even the
individual with the purest of motivations and purest of hearts will
eventually be faced with the well dramatized ethical problem of
choosing between doing what seems right and doing what is expedient
in getting or keeping power and/or wealth in order to achieve an
even greater vaguely defined good in some distant and tenuous
future. The inherent corruptibility of this situation is obvious:
the short term "small" corruption of minor consequence will be
offset by the wonderful things that the honest, hardworking,
ambitious, good politician's hubris says power conferred on him or
her will enable him or her to make manifest in a utopian
future.
The Second Malevolence
The second malevolent aspect is the ostensibly "good" intention of
wanting to do, honestly and without self serving motivations, "good
things." History and current events demonstrate that more evil,
death and corruption has been done on this planet in the name of
doing "good" than Marx ever ascribed to religion. When an
individual or group is convinced that they are doing something for
the greater good, be it for one's God, race, country or economy,
the end will frequently be used justify the means. In the name of
"good" children are beaten to death, "pro-lifers" kill, "pacifist"
religions authorize death and torture, "socialist" rulers initiate
genocidal pogroms and "democratically elected" governments take
their armaments into undemocratic countries to fix their elections.
In the name of "good" we have had the Spanish Inquisition, Hitler's
"Jewish Solution", the Vietnam War, and Canada's past policy of the
cultural genocide of aboriginal peoples.
And while the good-hearted people we send into seats of power
may not orchestrate the death of millions, the desire to do good
can and does lead people to accept or tolerate varying levels of
corruption as a necessary evil for the sake of doing the good deed
they promise themselves they are there to do. Acceptance of the
questionable actions is almost always well rationalized and/or
justified, of course. An ongoing example is that of various
governments choosing to deal with their/our monetary crunch by
initiating various types of gambling schemes, despite gambling's
documented "bad" side effects. (It is interesting to note that, if
memory serves me correctly, gambling as a means to supplement tax
revenue has been rejected by the majority of Canadians in poll
after poll, and at least once by referendum in British Columbia.
For those people who advocate a government bound to referenda, I
pose this questions: Would politicians actually listen to referenda
results which went counter to their desire to do good deeds and the
"right" thing - such as protecting the ignorant voter from the
folly of making a bad choice on a particular referendum?)
And a particularly poisonous form of "good-intentionitis" is
when the politician "knows" better than the voter what is good for
the voter. In this form of condescension the politician can block
out the concerns of his or her constituents and espouse with a
clear conscious the most mellifluous of double-speaks. Gordon
Campbell's referendum on treaty negotiations is a recent example,
and ably demonstrates that direct democracy, such as described by
Douglas Broome, can be at best a post hoc bandage and at worst a
tool of false democracy.
The Third Malevolence
The third malevolent aspect of the electoral process is a subtle
twist of the previous: the appeal of power tends to, in general but
with just enough exceptions to prove the rule, draw to it those who
are: a) least capable of handling it well and, b) the easiest to
corrupt.
This aspect relates to how the underlying temper of motivation
within the hidden chambers of the individual's heart, and not just
his or her broadcasted smiles full of bright teeth, wide eyes,
purity and integrity, eventually reveals itself in the actions of
that person.
The compulsive power seeker is often expressing some
psychological need, a need not dissimilar in structure from any
addictive need, even if it is expressed differently than the
typically self destructive behaviour of the alcoholic, junkie, of
coke-head. In the clever power seeker this character flaw can be
effectively masked and rewarded as willingness to sacrifice family
and health for long hours of getting results. On the surface, s/he
looks self sacrificing but in truth this type of power seeker is
narcissistically out to get just even an bit more power, so that
all choices and actions are weighed by their ability to get the
next hit of power. The recent publications about the sociopathic,
or even psychopathic nature of chief executive officers, give
concrete form to this argument.
Wanted: A Politician with a Small Ego
The insurmountable difficulty here is in finding a
politician whose ego is wise enough by being small enough to know
the difference between a small corruption and a big one - with the
added spice that those with the best intentions, biggest
aspirations, and largest egos generally tolerate the largest
corruptions. Nixon and VanderZalm are excellent examples of this,
each denying inappropriate behaviour even after having their hands
caught inside the metaphorical cookie jar. But so are the NDP, who
were far more effective when their ego was content at being simply
the conscience and voice of John and Jane Canuck in parliament than
after they deemed it important to get elected so as to be able to
do really good things.
But if we do not vote them in, how can a "democratic"
government be formed?
Make Governance A Selection Process, Akin to Jury
Duty
I suggest that we replace electioneering with a sophisticated
lottery process not dissimilar in principle from the jury selection
process. Eliminating elections would effectively destroy the three
malevolent aspects of the electioneering process I discussed above
in the following ways: "Candidates" would not begin their term
pre-bought; the random nature of the lottery would minimize both
the number of people drawn to power simply to feel powerful and
those ambitious "do-gooders" who are inherently prone to corruption
and constituency deafness; double-speak would no longer be
necessary to keep a good face forward or to mollify pre-election
"bad" press.
This would not eliminate the "crook" from politics, of course,
for crooks are a part of society: but the structure itself would
not be inherently corrupt, nor encourage corruption, because no one
would begin office being beholden to anyone or to an egoistically
generated and dangerous ambition from the first day of office.
Furthermore, broad corruption requires collusion that, without
"bought" parties, would be very difficult to initiate let alone
maintain.
Four Other Serendipitous Benefits
Firstly it is Democratic
Serendipitously this form of government selection has four other
very significant benefits. The first is that it is truly
democratic! All people (with certain minimum years of
education/work/experience, age, and residency status) would be
eligible: thus the sexes, races, religions and classes would all be
represented proportionally as they exist in Canada. (Like today,
unfortunately, the poor and homeless would have a hard time getting
representation. However, they may well be heard more clearly when
the government is not bound to corporate American economic ideals
which have rendered the poor our expendable economic - not social!
- failures.)
Secondly, House Votes are "Free" Votes
Secondly, almost every vote in the houses would likely be a free
vote, and no longer would there be wasted verbiage in the press and
in the house about them.
Thirdly is the Elimination of Electioneering
Thirdly, an enormous amount of costly and mostly puerile
word-waste would be eliminated because the need for dissembling
political posturing and silly verbal fencing to gain political
points rather than assist in the running of the country would be
gone. And, not insignificantly, it would eliminate the wanton waste
associated with electioneering, i.e., advertising, and the inane
but endless media spectacles and speculations. But the media could
still root happily around for scandal!
Fourthly is that It Honestly Recognizes the True Nature
of Governance
Finally (in this short list), since governing is an odious task it
is not insignificant that, like jury duty, the task of governing be
aligned with that fact, and not with glamour, prestige and Barnum
and Bailey-like showmanship and the hope and thrill of shilling the
paying customer.
While Not Without Flaws, It is Not Malevolent by
Inherent Design
And while this government selection process has its flaws, unlike
our current system it is not malevolent by design to the majority
it is suppose to be governing while benefiting those few with
money. And there are ways of minimizing even some of the most
obvious flaws, such as using some form of direct democracy as per
Harvey Schachter and Douglas Broome. In this case, direct democracy
would not be trying to counteract inherent corruption, but would be
a vehicle to give the population an immediate voice in choosing
between the various policy and social options.
Some Other Points to Consider
In point form, here are a few other ideas that might
increase the effectiveness of a "government-by-selection-lot".
1. Education is Important
Beyond some kind of minimum education and/or work
experience and residential qualifications, have those selected
attend intensive schooling for a year, more or less, to balance
their areas of familiarity with a broader look at history, the
humanities, literature. (This would be the opportunity to give
those selected and qualified "memory", as it is described by John
Ralston Saul.) Follow that by six months of study of domestic
and/or international affairs, as per the experience and
qualifications of the "candidates." Follow this by six months time
to rest from schooling and work to give the "candidates" time to be
with their families and thoughts in a significant way before
serving a long term. To accommodate attrition during this process,
begin with more candidates than seats in the house - about ten
percent, say. These people, if not actually sitting at the opening
of parliament, become alternates during the course of the
term.)
2. Cabinet Members are Chosen, the Unsuitable Thanked
and Let Go
During the education process those most suitable for the equivalent
of cabinet posts would make themselves known, as would those
suitable for some form of senate - as a place of reflection and
second thought. Additional or extended education and/or direct
experience would be "foisted" onto them. And those not at all
suitable to govern would be thanked for their time and let go.
3. A Tour of Duty is a Minimum of Seven Years - With
Reviews
The duty term be made for not less than seven years. Some
kind of "direct democracy review" could be done after three years
and thereafter bi-annually, for example.
4. For Continuity, The End of a Tour of Duty Doesn't
Include Everyone
After the seven year term is done, have only two thirds of
the people retire out of government. A secret ballot at the end of
year six is held in which, perhaps, each parliamentarian chooses
one hundred people as being suitable for continued action in
government. Here also direct democracy could have a place, as the
population in general would also choose those people they feel
would be best to stay in government. They too could pick one
hundred names. The top thirty to fifty names would then serve a
second term. This kind of arrangement allows for change, but
recognizes the value of some form of continuity. Any form of
electioneering by anyone to be one of those selected is punishable
by not less than having his or her name crossed off the list of
those eligible for a second term.
5. Salaries Linked to A Member's Previous
Employment
Salaries for the representatives would be at 10-20% above the
wage/salary they would have earned in their current work/career,
plus some expense money. This addresses the concern about getting
"qualified" people into government and links the cost of government
personnel to "market" prices. Wage increases and pensions would be
similarly linked to the work world.
6. Creative Genius May be Granted at Least a Tiny Plot
of Fertile Parliamentary Ground
While structured, this "system" gives creative genius a
reasonable shot of being expressed without it being stifled by a
structure thoroughly wedded to mediocrity and corruptibility (to
paraphrase John Ralston Saul).
Bibliography
Aristotle. Politics and Poetics, books 2 and
3.
Broome, Douglas. "Saturday Review", The Vancouver Sun,
Sept. 21, 1996)
Saul, John Ralston. The Unconscious Civilization.
Concord, Ont.: House of Anansi Press Limited, 1995.
Schachter, Harvey. The Globe and Mail, Sat. Apr. 19, 1997
D3.