Democracy at work

Democratic countries ranked from dark green (most
democratic) to reddish-brown (least democratic)

Democracy is hardly the newest political theory going around. After all, it has been used as a form of government since 507 BCE. But after two and a half thousand years, barely 60% of national governments are considered democratic (according to Freedom House) and if the Democratic Index is to be believed, only 25 nations employ fully democratic elected governments. It also goes without saying that even within those governments, problems with elections and full sovereignty of the people can occur. So what’s wrong with democracy? Is it really, as Winston Churchill put it, “the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”? Or can it be seen as Abraham Lincoln saw it, as a “government of the people, for the people, by the people”?  Examining three different forms of elected government may provide the answer.

The most familiar elected government type (for Australians anyway) is the Australian system. The Democratic Index describes it as a form of federalism, constitutional monarchy, and parliamentary democracy with bicameralism. For normal people, essentially Australia has a tiered governmental system in which power is shared as prescribed by the Constitution, has the Queen of England as nominal Head of State and employs a parliamentary system with two houses. What this ensures is no entity or person can hold excessive amounts of power and influence, through the vast number of checks and balances at all levels of government. But this can also cause much inefficiency in government through bureaucratic double handling and red tape, as well as disagreements between he different levels of government.

Also important in Australia’s democratic process is the different voting methods it has for electing members to parliament.  Australia is one of just 23 countries with compulsory voting. And while there are many criticisms of enforced participation in elections, it does mean that the elected candidate represents the majority of all citizens. It also prevents any interference or influence with accessing the vote or deciding whom to vote for. Preferential Voting (PV) is used for the lower house of parliament, in which electors rank the candidates from most to least favoured, ensuring that the winner, if not winning a majority of support outright, has the support of most of the electorate indirectly.  The upper house is decided through Proportional Representation (PR), and while a confusing method, simplistically if a candidate gains the required percentage votes (14.3% normally) either directly or through preferences they win a seat.  So in a sense there is a balance for small and large political parties, the large parties dominating PV voting while the smaller political parties having a better chance at getting elected through PR.

So what does this mean for democracy in Australia? The advantages of their system is that it requires electors to be informed when it comes to casting their ballot, there is very little corruption and in government power is kept firmly in check. However there are also some problems. A consequence of compulsory voting is a sense of complacency and entitlement in politicians knowing that electors have to vote for them. The public has no direct control over which person leads the country or who the candidate of their local area is. Also, obstructionist opposition, both at a federal and sate level, can paralyse effective government as parties tend to vote along party lines rather than regarding each issue on its merits.

The Australian parliamentary system is of course based on the Westminster system of its colonial masters Great Britain. The United Kingdom ‘s form of democratic government although based on similar ideals, has a few differences.  Firstly, although also a bicameral system, there is no election of the upper house, or House of Lords as its known. The House of Lords is consists of Lords Spiritual (prominent members of the Church of England), and Lord Temporal (holders of hereditary or life peerages). Perhaps in a concession to the undemocratic manner of appointment, the House of Lords has restricted powers to block or reject bills that come before it, and cannot reject any of a financial nature.  Also, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have their own forms of government, known as devolved administrations, in which they have some powers to run their respective countries. However, unlike the idea of federalism, these powers are not legislated or bound by a Constitution or similar bill, but can vary from country to country.

Example of Scotland's MMP
 ballot paper

When it comes to voting, elections for the House of Commons is quite straightforward. A first-past-the-post system is employed, where the winner is the candidate who receives the most number of votes, regardless of what percentage of votes they receive. In devolved administrations, elections are held under the Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP) where the elector votes for their favoured local candidate as well as their favoured party on one ballot paper. As with PV, first-past-the-post greatly favours large political parties while MMP is of more benefit to smaller political groups. Voting in the UK is entirely optional.

In terms of democracy, the British system throws up a different set benefits and problems. Non-compulsory voting should make politicians work harder for their constituents to aid their chance of re-election, and MMP voting enables electors to reward or punish their candidates without reference to their political affiliation. But the first-past-the-post system results in lop-sided parliaments and enables candidates to be elected even if a large majority people voted against them. Furthermore, an appointed upper house without full legislative and reforming powers cannot fully hold a government to account; it can only delay motions, essentially making it a rubber stamp for the government.

Current makeup of US
House of Representatives

The final democratic system is perhaps the one with widest worldwide recognition.  The US system is a federalist, bicameral constitutional republic with a president as head of state. There is strong separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. There is also a power sharing arrangement between federal and state levels of government as directed by the constitution. Elections for both houses are held every two years, with half of the members in the House of Representatives, and one-third of the Senate up for election each time. Presidential elections occur every four years, with the President only able to be elected for two full terms.

Current makeup of US Senate
(Independants light blue)

The US voting system is perhaps the most democratic of the three. It does not compel people to vote, but it does enable electors to select their preferred candidate before an election as well as the ability to select their own head of state. However, and participation in electing candidates, known as primaries, requires the elector to register themselves as either a Democratic or Republican voter. The US also employs a first-past-the-post voting method, where the candidate needs a plurality rather than a majority, which has resulted in US politics being utterly dominated by two parties. In the 112^th Congress (the current Congress) only 2 members of the 540-plus members are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican party.

While to the letter of the law it may seem the most democratic form, the US congressional system does have a few issues.  While mostly kept in check, the president does have the power of veto over legislation as well as executive powers to act without the consultation of Congress. Also, there is no overarching body to monitor the electoral process, with each state running it’s own polls on election day. This can cause inconsistencies and errors, as has been seen in recent US elections.  However the major criticism of the US democratic system is the influence of wealth. More often than not, winning selection or winning a seat in Congress often comes down to access to funding as much as political ability. Candidates who spend more on election campaigns invariably trump those not as financially well off. But that not to say there are not great benefits too, with members of Congress better representing their constituents and tending to speak their own minds on issues rather than toeing the party line. Also, the clearly outlined powers and restrictions of government and judiciary outlined in the Bill of Rights and also elsewhere in the Constitution provide stability and security for the US and its citizens.

So where does this leave democracy? From these examples it is clear that democracy has not been perfected, even amongst some of the most democratic nations in the world, despite many thousands of years of practice. That is of course without even taking into account nations with poor or no democratic involvement in government. In an ideal world democracy would involve motivated electors making informed voting decisions, probably in some form of representational voting system electing progressive governments with the right balance between the power to act quickly and decisively and the necessary check and balances to prevent abuses of power. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a utopia, and the perhaps the reason why democracy isn’t perfect is best summed up by social commentator and critic Alexander Woollcott, ”Of course it doesn’t work. We are supposed to work it.”