DEMOCRACY MY WAY
It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. I have no reason to argue with that proposition. The problem, of course is in the nature of human beings who can subvert the best system and do regularly. Allan Levine, a Canadian writer, in a biography of William Lyon Mackenzie King, a former Prime Minister of Canada during the Second World War has documented that Mr. King was self-righteous, egotistical, petty, vain, and exhibited other negative characteristics not known to the public. Imagine if the electorate had known that King peered into his shaving cream for future events of the day, or talked amiably to dead people including his mother. He never would have been P.M. for 22 important years. It is safe to say that negative personality traits of candidates are never brought to the public’s attention. But there are many more faults with the system. Consider the recent federal election in Quebec. The New Democratic Party wanted to gain the $1.50 per vote given to every recognized party, so they threw in any nominations in Quebec to get the money. One of the candidates had never even visited the riding. How absurd! Because of a desire to punish the Bloc Quebecois the New Democratic candidates were elected. The Quebec voters in these individual ridings did not even remotely know who they were supporting. Certainly a perversion of democracy!
I cannot forget the situation amongst a few countries in the European Union. Greece may soon go bankrupt. How can an elected parliament spend so much more money than they collect? Very easily if there are members looking for re-election, and they don’t give a damn. Let the future government worry.
Freedom House, an American based institution, dedicated to promoting democracies currently counts 115 electoral democracies —that is countries with governments chosen in competitions—it ranks only 88 of them as free, the other 27 are partly free, meaning that the judiciary is not fully independent, or the press is controlled or corruption is rampant. Even when the system works it works poorly.
Self-interest and maintaining power is constant in all elected officials of all countries. Politicians are more interested in retaining their position than in doing the proper thing for the country. There usually is a compromise between what is good for the country and what will help in re-election. Lying about what can be done is the modus operendi because you cannot get elected by saying “No”. I think that bears repeating, you cannot get elected by saying NO to your constituents.Because people must compromise their principles,so often the best potential candidates just never run.
The problems in all democratic countries are very apparent. The new candidates are not well known by the public and the main interest of sitting members is getting re-elected. The election itself is really a contest between parties whose platforms in a democracy are not really different. Attack ads are now the norm. And in any case they do not come through very often with the truth and their promises. There are five problems with the present system. The best candidates do not run, and candidates and parties are more interested in re-election than in looking after the country. Also a person with original ideas will hardly ever get a nomination. The government spent 300 million for the election in 2008 and the real issues, which are very complicated, are never really debated. Nobody knows how much was spent by special interests and candidates in the election.
How to run a country and get the best people into parliament? My system works this way. Anyone who is a citizen and over 35 who feels qualified to be a member of parliament can apply by sending in a form given to them by the government. I am not going to go into the details but the “designated people” reading the application would find out a lot about the people and their abilities, and how useful they would be as members of the legislature. The”designated people” are composed of a committee chosen by the present parliament and sit in the present parliament. There are no names and addresses on the form, only the province, and the exact identity of the individual is not on the application. The salary must be substantial because the term in office is 6 years and there is no second term There is no pension and we can do away with the Senate, which is nothing more than a way to pay off people by political parties for past services. There are 308 seats in the house so I recommend 616 of the applications be accepted. The 616 applications are put in a closed box and the 308 new members are chosen by lot. The people chosen will be a body much superior in intelligence and ability than present members. People who are not qualified would not be chosen. That cannot be said for the present system. The people chosen would be given a riding near to their homes and would consider that riding their home base. The” designated people” who choose the future candidates are from the sitting members but no one knows who will actually sit in the next parliament because the last names are chosen by luck. This system for all practical purposes eliminates the political parties. But as mentioned, in an effective democracy, the top parties are very much alike. They all make promises to get elected, and then do only what they can and what they have to, for re-election. The only important reality in party democracy is the government must have an election every few years.
Before closing I should go back to Mackenzie King, who though a bit of an odd-ball, ran the country quite well. I still however, would like sane, capable people looking after the affairs of state, and the system I propose fills the bill. What it doesn’t do is tell you who might be the next Prime Minister. And so to make my idea more palatable and to give the public a say in who would lead the country, the chosen members select 4 people from among themselves who they think would make a good Prime Minister. These 4 people have a public debate on television and a traditional election is held to choose the P.M. and this elected P.M. chooses the cabinet. It is similar to the American system of electing a president irrespective of which party is elected in the house and senate.
What I have accomplished is that very capable people are in parliament with no promises being made, serve for 6 years and then retire to private life. The interests of the country are first and foremost, a pleasant change from the present, where every member is primarily interested in how changes will affect their re-election Members will form temporary alliances to achieve a desired end but the useless party system which is self-serving is eliminated.
