On Electoral Reform

8/14/2019 On Electoral Reform

1/7

Page 1

On Electoral Reform - R2009.12.18.rtf 09.12.18 11:5

Submission to:

Panel Members of the British Columbia

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

555 W. Hastings Street

Vancouver BC V6B 4N6

On the Self-Corrupting Nature of Electioneering And a *Politic Alternative

by

Guy A. Duperreault, BGS, AScT

[deleted contact information]

May 6, 2004Rev January 12, 2009

*[In original, I had 'Democratic', here, but since reading Aristotle's The Politics, I now know thatour use of the word 'Democratic' is not quite in alignment with its original meaning. 'Properly,' a

democracyis that of governance by the poor. A plutocracyis governance by all, and anoligarchyis governance by the wealthy. Keep this in mind when reading the following, that my

use of the word 'democracy' aligns with our common usage, but that that usage is an example ofOrwell's 'double-' or 'news-' speak. My society is in practice an oligarchy, nota democracy.]


2/7

Page 2


There are Three Malevolent Aspects of Electioneering

The failure of the parliamentary process due to corruption, and the eventual symptomsof that failure, begin with the electoral process itself: by its structure, the process of

getting elected populates parliament with tainted goods, regardless the integrity andhonesty and goodness of the individuals entering the electioneering forum. There arethree endemically malevolent aspects of any electoral process built aroundelectioneering. They are: the roles of money, good intentions and power.

There are alternatives to the current voting system. After examining why agovernment'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 ofour current voting system.

The First Malevolence

The first and most obvious electioneering malevolence is that it requires money to getelected. While a party and its candidates may receive the majority of its funds fromJohn and Jane Canuck, the largest individual donations come from collectives, themain ones being business and organized labour. Limiting the size of donations willcurtail this problem - but only as far as under-the-table perks and the promise oflucrative post-government corporate appointments. These corporate collectives buythe voice and obligation of the candidate and in the process mutes John and JaneCanuck's democratic voice. This role of money in the voting process perverts anydemocracy 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 apparentgoal of socializing Canada is not being heard by MP's, MLA's or city officials. Somemight 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 mostpart, long since abdicated that important and difficult function for the easier role ofouting political "scandals", spouting inconsequential homilies about political partieslistening to the voter on election day, and selling stock portfolios and the value ofAmerican-style "free" market economics. Their corporate ownership structure aligns itwith the beneficiaries of the oligarchy. The media is now a part of the oligarchy, and asignificant one.

Given the role money plays in getting elected, even the individual with the purest ofmotivations and purest of hearts will eventually be faced with the well dramatizedethical problem of choosing between doing what seems right and doing what isexpedient in getting or keeping power and/or wealth in order to achieve an evengreater vaguely defined good in some distant and tenuous future. The inherentcorruptibility of this situation is obvious: the short term "small" corruption of minorconsequence 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


3/7

Page 3


or her to make manifest in a utopian future.

The Second MalevolenceThe 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 planetin the name of doing "good" than Marx ever ascribed to religion. When an individualor group is convinced that they are doing something for the greater good, be it forone'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" religionsauthorize death and torture, "socialist" rulers initiate genocidal pogroms and"democratically elected" governments take their armaments into undemocraticcountries to fix their elections. In the name of "good" we have had the SpanishInquisition, Hitler's "Jewish Solution", the Vietnam War, and Canada's past policy of thecultural genocide of aboriginal peoples.

And while the good-hearted people we send into seats of power may not orchestratethe death of millions, the desire to do good can and does lead people to accept ortolerate varying levels of corruption as a necessary evil for the sake of doing the gooddeed they promise themselves they are there to do. Acceptance of the questionableactions is almost always well rationalized and/or justified, of course. An ongoingexample is that of various governments choosing to deal with their/our monetarycrunch by initiating various types of gambling schemes, despite gambling'sdocumented "bad" side effects. (It is interesting to note that, if memory serves mecorrectly, gambling as a means to supplement tax revenue has been rejected by themajority of Canadians in poll after poll, and at least once by referendum in BritishColumbia. For those people who advocate a government bound to referenda, I pose

this questions: Would politicians actually listen to referenda results which wentcounter to their desire to do good deeds and the "right" thing - such as protecting theignorant 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 condescensionthe politician can block out the concerns of his or her constituents and espouse with aclear conscious the most mellifluous of double-speaks. Gordon Campbell'sreferendum on treaty negotiations is a recent example, and ably demonstrates thatdirect democracy, such as described by Douglas Broome, can be at best a post hocbandage and at worst a tool of false democracy.

The Third MalevolenceThe 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 therule, draw to it those who are: a) least capable of handling it well and, b) the easiest tocorrupt.

This aspect relates to how the underlying temper of motivation within the hidden


4/7

Page 4


chambers of the individual's heart, and not just his or her broadcasted smiles full ofbright teeth, wide eyes, purity and integrity, eventually reveals itself in the actions ofthat 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 differentlythan the typically self destructive behaviour of the alcoholic, junkie, of coke-head. Inthe clever power seeker this character flaw can be effectively masked and rewardedas willingness to sacrifice family and health for long hours of getting results. On thesurface, s/he looks self sacrificing but in truth this type of power seeker isnarcissistically out to get just even an bit more power, so that all choices and actionsare weighed by their ability to get the next hit of power. The recent publications aboutthe sociopathic, or even psychopathic nature of chief executive officers, give concreteform to this argument.

Wanted: A Politician with a Small Ego

The insurmountable difficulty here is in finding a politician whose ego is wise enoughby being small enough to know the difference between a small corruption and a bigone - with the added spice that those with the best intentions, biggest aspirations, andlargest egos generally tolerate the largest corruptions. Nixon and VanderZalm areexcellent examples of this, each denying inappropriate behaviour even after havingtheir hands caught inside the metaphorical cookie jar. But so are the NDP, who werefar more effective when their ego was content at being simply the conscience andvoice of John and Jane Canuck in parliament than after they deemed it important toget 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 DutyI suggest that we replace electioneering with a sophisticated lottery process notdissimilar in principle from the jury selection process. Eliminating elections wouldeffectively destroy the three malevolent aspects of the electioneering process Idiscussed 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 peopledrawn to power simply to feel powerful and those ambitious "do-gooders" who areinherently prone to corruption and constituency deafness; double-speak would nolonger 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 ofsociety: but the structure itself would not be inherently corrupt, nor encouragecorruption, because no one would begin office being beholden to anyone or to an


5/7

Page 5


egoistically generated and dangerous ambition from the first day of office.Furthermore, broad corruption requires collusion that, without "bought" parties, wouldbe very difficult to initiate let alone maintain.

Four Other Serendipitous Benefits

Firstly it is Democratic [actually, plutocratic]Serendipitously this form of government selection has four other very significantbenefits. The first is that it is truly democratic! All people (with certain minimum yearsof education/work/experience, age, and residency status) would be eligible: thus thesexes, races, religions and classes would all be represented proportionally as theyexist in Canada. (Like today, unfortunately, the poor and homeless would have a hardtime getting representation. However, they may well be heard more clearly when thegovernment is not bound to corporate American economic ideals which have renderedthe poor our expendable economic - not social! - failures.)

Secondly, House Votes are "Free" VotesSecondly, almost every vote in the houses would likely be a free vote, and no longerwould there be wasted verbiage in the press and in the house about them.

Thirdly is the Elimination of ElectioneeringThirdly, an enormous amount of costly and mostly puerile word-waste would beeliminated because the need for dissembling political posturing and silly verbalfencing to gain political points rather than assist in the running of the country would begone. And, not insignificantly, it would eliminate the wanton waste associated withelectioneering, i.e., advertising, and the inane but endless media spectacles andspeculations. But the media could still root happily around for scandal!

Fourthly is that It Honestly Recognizes the True Nature of GovernanceFinally (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 shillingthe 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 itis not malevolent by design to the majority it is suppose to be governing whilebenefiting those few with money. And there are ways of minimizing even some of themost obvious flaws, such as using some form of direct democracy as per HarveySchachter and Douglas Broome. In this case, direct democracy would not be trying tocounteract inherent corruption, but would be a vehicle to give the population animmediate voice in choosing between the various policy and social options.


6/7

Page 6


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 ImportantBeyond some kind of minimum education and/or work experience and residentialqualifications, 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 studyof 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 givethe "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 morecandidates than seats in the house - about ten percent, say. These people, if notactually sitting at the opening of parliament, become alternates during the course ofthe term.)

2. Cabinet Members are Chosen, the Unsuitable Thanked and Let GoDuring the education process those most suitable for the equivalent of cabinet postswould make themselves known, as would those suitable for some form of senate - as aplace of reflection and second thought. Additional or extended education and/or directexperience would be "foisted" onto them. And those not at all suitable to govern wouldbe thanked for their time and let go.

3. A Tour of Duty is a Minimum of Seven Years - With ReviewsThe duty term be made for not less than seven years. Some kind of "direct democracyreview" 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 EveryoneAfter the seven year term is done, have only two thirds of the people retire out ofgovernment. A secret ballot at the end of year six is held in which, perhaps, eachparliamentarian chooses one hundred people as being suitable for continued action ingovernment. Here also direct democracy could have a place, as the population ingeneral 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 nameswould then serve a second term. This kind of arrangement allows for change, butrecognizes the value of some form of continuity. Any form of electioneering by anyoneto be one of those selected is punishable by not less than having his or her namecrossed off the list of those eligible for a second term.

5. Salaries Linked to A Member's Previous EmploymentSalaries for the representatives would be at 10-20% above the wage/salary they


7/7

Page 7


would have earned in their current work/career, plus some expense money. Thisaddresses the concern about getting "qualified" people into government and links thecost of government personnel to "market" prices. Wage increases and pensions wouldbe similarly linked to the work world.

6. Creative Genius May be Granted at Least a Tiny Plot of Fertile ParliamentaryGroundWhile structured, this "system" gives creative genius a reasonable shot of beingexpressed without it being stifled by a structure thoroughly wedded to mediocrity andcorruptibility (to paraphrase John Ralston Saul).

Bibliography

Aristotle. Politics and Poetics. Books the Second and Third.

Broome, Douglas. "Saturday Review", The Vancouver Sun, Sept. 21, 1996)

Saul, John Ralston. The Unconscious Civilization. Concord, Ont.: House of AnansiPress Limited, 1995.

Schachter, Harvey. The Globe and Mail, Sat. Apr. 19, 1997 D3.

Documents

On Electoral Reform