Churchill retired from public life in the 1950s and died in 1965 so it perhaps unfair to consider his words in the context of the modern world. It is also true that democracy in its current form remains a lot better form of government than that practised in places like Zimbabwe, North Korea and New South Wales. However, when you look at the problems in the world's leading democracies and what is needed to fix them, you have to seriously ask, has democracy really been working and is it the best way forward?
Before embarking on an analysis on where democracy could improve, it's important to understand where it has come from and how it got to where it is today. It is a common misconception that democracy has always been about one vote, one value and that the population as a whole has always been able to have their say in the election and running of government. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Democracy is widely acknowledged as having arisen in ancient Greece. In fact, the word itself derives from the Greek words "demos" (for 'people') and "kratos" (for 'rule'). However Greek society was far from the egalitarian paradise that misty-eyed historians might imagine. As with a lot of primitive societies, slavery was broadly practiced and women were regarded very much as second-class citizens. Needless to say, women and slaves weren't allowed to vote and the election of public officials was very much left to the elites of society.
Fast forward to England, also considered a longstanding bastion of democracy. However, after the Norman Conquest of 1066 when England finally became politically unified, it took nearly 600 years for the seeds of a functioning democracy to take hold. Even then, it took until 1928 for women to be given the vote on equal terms with men, so "democracy" as we understand it today is only a relatively recent development in what is regarded as one of the world's most open and free countries.
Finally, let's consider the USA, the self-proclaimed leader of the free world and champion of democracy. Many wise men lauded as great patriots and protagonists of freedom sat down to write the US consititution in the late 1700s - one of whom, Thomas Jefferson, openly supported slavery. The Constitution was indeed a ground-breaking document in many ways but it fell a long way short of giving everyone an equal say in the election of the government. Slavery was practised in the US until after the Civil War in the 1840s and similarly to England, the rights of women to vote were only codified in the Consitution 1920 and even then, only after persistent protest from the suffrage movement over many years.
It's clear therefore that the concept of everyone having a vote is a relatively new one in the major democracies. Also while the idea is admirable in the sense of giving everyone an equal say (at least notionally), I'm not sure that this system is ideal either. Just because a person has a right to do something doesn't mean it's a good thing for them to actually exercise that right. This is particularly relevant when you consider some of the people who vote.
American people who think that the 9/11 attacks happened in November last year and were instigated by Saddam Hussein, they vote.
People who oppose migration because they seriously believe a migrant is going to come and take their job, they vote.
People who put bumper stickers on the back of their trucks which say "I shoot and I vote", they vote. If you don't believe me, then read their bumper stickers. The people who print those bumper stickers also vote. They probably also employ the sorts of people who are worried about migrants taking their jobs.
Americans who think Elvis is still alive and who think that aliens are prepared to travel hundreds of thousands of light years across the galaxy merely for the purpose of giving them an anal probe or making a cow explode, they vote.
People who got themselves pregnant because they would get the baby bonus and not because they genuinely wanted to bring a child into the world and then spend the baby bonus on a new plasma TV, they vote. Even worse, they breed.
While Churchill was a staunch defender of democracy, he was also once quoted as saying that the best argument against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. One can just imagine what he would make of this lot.
I'm conscious of sounding somewhat elitist here, so let me make it clear that when I say it's not necessarily the best thing for everyone to vote, I don't consider myself or most of my friends or colleagues appropriately equipped to make an informed voting choice either. While most people I know generally try to keep abreast of what is going on in the world and can recognise in general terms when a government is performing badly or when an opposition presents a credible alternative, it's very difficult for someone to access the same level of information when choosing a government as you would say when you are assessing an investment opportunity, choosing a school for your children or applying for a job. We might suspect someone putting themselves up for election is a halfwit or a crook, but the average voter doesn't typically get the opportunity to grill the politician one-on-one to confirm or dismiss their suspicions.
Even if it was possible to conduct the requisite level of due diligence, most people including myself have got other priorities and don't pay attention to much other than a few key points like tax, health and education. Kevin Rudd's policy on pig quotas for China - honestly who cares? The mortgage is due, the market's down 10 per cent this week and both the kids need braces. Arrgh! Bring me my heart pills and a double espresso.
While it is fair, giving everyone the vote instead of just an engaged, intelligent elite does have a downside. Being one of 20 million voters feels pretty disempowering, and this leads to voter disengagement. Disengaged voters are problematic because they allow governments to become complacent and develop bad practices which aren't in the country's long term interest. They also allow certain insidious elements of society like special interest groups who don't directly vote to get in the government's ear and distract it from what it should be doing. When you combine the activities of these groups with a media that is increasingly more interested pushing the political agenda of their owners and in running tabloid headlines instead of reporting facts, then it's little wonder that democracies around the world are performing in a sub-optimal fashion.
Let's take Australia as an example, because if I start on the USA I will still be going on in 70 pages time. We're fortunate relative to most other countries, but look at the significant problems we are currently facing. In Queensland, the health system is an under-funded mess, while Brisbane's road and transport network is woefully inadequate despite the government acknowledging openly that Queensland is a high growth state and infrastructure needs to be built to cope with that growth. Victoria and South Australia are just about out of water, and the Murray-Darling system is close to collapse. Melbourne's suburban rail network would be an embarrassment to any self-respecting third world city, let alone one that sells itself as one of the world's most liveable. And as for New South Wales - well, I just repeat my comment above about not wanting to go on for 70 pages. The federal government should have long ago stepped up and helped fix some of these problems however it now has other pressing priorities courtesy of the global financial crisis.
Why has this happened? In my opinion it's because governments both state and federal have for too long been making decisions based on the following criteria:
- Decisions that are politically expedient trump the right long-term decisions: the reason for our appalling under-investment in infrastructure in this country is plain and simple. No government is going to commit surplus money to a 10-15 year project like a train network or a desalination plant when there is an election looming and the money can instead be applied to populist uses. A classic example is Howard and Costello blowing the windfalls of the mining boom on unnecessary things like income tax cuts and George W's war on terror. Infrastructure and other long-term investments only become popular when the need for them is urgent and unfortunately, long-term projects aren't the sort of things that can be delivered overnight.
- Don't under any circumstances act without covering your backside: sadly, politicians have become so enfeebled by a combination of media scrutiny and good old fashioned spinelessness that a whole new industry has arisen of firms who do nothing else than consult to government. Gone are the days of leaders like Hawke and Kennett unilaterally making bold and potentially unpopular decisions. If a new Government initiative gets announced today, you can almost guarantee it's been sanitised and watered down by a succession of spin doctors, ex-investment bankers and lobbyists so that it won't cause a media circus and affect polling. Unfortunately chances are that after this process, what was potentially a good initiative has been reduced to nothing more than a token gesture.
- If you "gaffe", you're gone: the party machines have become so terrified of negative media coverage that they are prepared to instantly marginalise their better people merely because they might let something slip in front of the microphone. Honestly, there is something seriously wrong with a system that allows such a charismatic and passionate environmental advocate like Peter Garrett to get shunted aside in favour of the terminally bland Penny Wong. Who out of these two do we honestly think is going to present our country's interests better or more eloquently on the world stage? Until however the media stop taking cheap shots and instead report constructively on what a politician has to say, we are going to get more and more of these harmful knee-jerk reactions.
- The squeaky wheel gets the oil: if you have contacts within the government and use them, chances are you will benefit. As we have seen time and again both America and here, governments do not do what the voters want, they do what lobbyists and their financial supporters want. For example, most Australians would like to see a shift from a polluting, fossil fuel energy system to a clean energy system. After all, in the long term it makes perfect sense to do just that. Yet apart from the token act of ratifying the Kyoto protocol and getting a professor with an impressive resume to write a report (see comments above about consultants), the Rudd government has done essentially nothing in this area since its election. Why? Well, aside from the problem of Penny Wong putting anyone she meets with to sleep, it's basically because the energy lobby has got in the ear of Martin Ferguson and called for a "go slow". Meanwhile, those of us who live in Victoria sit and watch as the never-ending drought drains our rivers, dries up our gardens and makes us feel guilty about taking a 10 minute shower.
- Stuff the voters but get the media onside: around every election you will get a TV shot of the incumbent Prime Minister or leader of the opposition making a pilgrimage to see Rupert Murdoch over in New York. Hello? Does anybody else see something wrong with this picture? The motives of an arch-conservative media tycoon who renounced his Australian citizenship long ago are hardly going to be in the interests of most Australians who actually vote. Yet there is no more powerful symbol than this of the influence big media has over our supposedly democratically elected government.
As you can see, the sort of strong, decisive and foresighted leadership we need is unlikely to emerge until governments shed this timid, butt-covering mentality. Needless to say, these sorts of problems don't happen in a place like China where people like Murdoch would have long ago been shot and lobbyists as we know them are non-existent. However anyone would acknowledge that China's government is far from ideal either, so how do we improve what we've got?
Like most people, I am more adept at complaining about problems as opposed to solving them, however at the risk of sounding entirely negative, let me propose some initiatives:
- Give governments longer terms: I know and understand the arguments against this but it's unrealistic to expect governments to make solid long-term decisions when they constantly have one eye on the polls. My view is to give them 8 years. After all, we gave Brian Harradine, Steve Fielding and all of the Democrats 6 years. Surely that's reason enough to give someone vaguely sensible a bit longer?
- Heavily regulate lobbyists: the government is starting to wake up to this by forcing all lobbyists to register, but things need to go a lot further than that. As people who are entitled to vote, we should be entitled to know if an organisation who isn't entitled to vote is trying to a manipulate our elected officials. It might be a bit extreme, but I would suggest as a start that they be forced to wear a nice big tattoo across their forehead saying "Beware ! Lobbyist Approaching !"
- Ban corporations from making political donations: we've all witnessed the disasters that this has created in America where governments have effectively become the puppets of large corporations. There's demonstrably no good that can come of it, so just ban it. If companies want to make a contribution to the government that badly, then they should instead volunteer to pay their fair share of tax. Ohh, that's so funny. I crack myself up sometimes.
- Set up an Australian sovereign fund to invest in infrastructure: if governments consider long-term infrastructure investment political suicide, then let's depoliticise it and set up a specific fund outside the control of the government for that purpose and capitalise it with windfall taxation gains. We've all seen the clear benefits of taking the politics out of things like the currency exchange rate and settings of monetary policy, so why not extend that to this area?
- Educate the voters: if we can't stop politicians, big media or lobbyists misbehaving, then at least we should be wise to them and educate people as to the barrow they are trying to push. This is needed because credulity is a fairly prevalent human characteristic and we tend to believe what we see and hear at face value. Of course, we all know now that statements like "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction", "Never, ever will we have a GST" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" were blatant lies. The trick is to recognise that up front and call the liars to account before the lies wreak havoc.
So, to sum up this diatribe, is democracy really working, or should we exhume Brezhnev or Mussolini in order to better take care of business? My view is that it clearly is in some sense, but there is no doubt it could be working a lot better. I'm glad I enjoy the freedom to chew gum at will and write things like this blog, but equally there are some facets of dictatorships around the world which appeal in times like these when governments need to make important decisions. Ultimately, dictators can just make those decisions without too much fear of reprisal while democratic governments require courage, vision and no small amount of salesmanship in order to do what is right instead of what is politically expedient.
Perhaps to assist this what we need to do as voters is foster an environment whereby doing the right thing becomes also the politically expedient thing and those leaders who make the bold, long term decisions get appropriately rewarded. Then, and only then, can we prove Churchill wrong on both counts.
As it stands today, I have to say that Churchill was being harsh when he made his statements, but he was probably also being fair.
