8.0.7.3 Responses to Democratic Failure

Version 1.1 August 2014                                    (Previous Version)

The concerns we are addressing here are summarised in the introduction (more) as follows:

On a national level, even democratic societies don’t take the required action:

§ 3.1   The democratic process is under threat from big business & powerful vested interests.

We show that the advantages of democratic government – that the rulers’ interests are aligned with those of the people who elect them – are undermined when the rulers align themselves with business and other vested interest groups, who are often foreign.  People with money and those with excessive religious zeal are able to influence enough voters so that our elected politicians are unwilling to act for the good of all against sectional interests.

·         European and American farmers oppose free trade in agriculture, to the detriment of both their local consumers and developing countries. 

·         International resource companies successfully opposed an effective mining tax in Australia, enriching foreign shareholders at the expense of the Australian public.

We show that concerted effort can work to expose and oppose these practices.

§ 3.2   Even elected governments are loath to make what are known to be correct decisions, out of fear of antagonising these and other influential minorities.

For instance:

·         The National Rifle Association in the USA opposes almost any form of gun control, despite the avoidable annual toll of tens of thousands of gun deaths (from suicides, homicides and accidents) and popular support for at least some gun control.

·         The Catholic Church and Christian Evangelicals have successfully opposed and delayed legalisation of abortion and condom use, despite majority support and the widespread risk of unsafe abortions, though their own sexual abuses are diminishing their influence.

We show that it's necessary for reasonable (rational, natural) people to be united, to become an “interest group� whose goal is to promote evidence based, equitable policies.

§ 3.3   Elected governments have been loath to raise taxes on the wealthy, or to control multinational corporations, because of the threat of internationally mobile capital.

Corporate leaders and highly paid professionals are often highly mobile, willing to move to other states or countries to further their careers.  International corporations have the flexibility to set up job creating businesses in a range of countries.  So, it is said, national governments would be reckless to have highly progressive tax regimes, in which those on very high incomes pay a much greater proportion of income tax, and it is also reckless to tax multinationals higher, or impose more regulator controls, than other countries.

We show that these claims can be countered.  The free market assumptions on which they are based are flawed.  Some investments, such as mining, cannot be cost effectively relocated.  Countries can attract corporations because of their educated work force, legal reliability and social stability and co-operate with others to implement appropriate taxes and regulation.  Many of the supposedly mobile professionals are restrained by their families, and many would move country for a more prestigious position regardless of tax regimes. 

§ 3.4   Elected governments have been loath to raise any taxes, control access to state welfare or reduce subsidies to inefficient businesses, for fear of loss of electoral support.

Tax increases on those of us who are not wealthy are also politically risky.  Many countries, for historical reasons or for party political advantage, maintain subsidies to business or welfare payments where the justification for these, if there ever was one, no longer applies. 

Many countries, including the USA and Europe, subsidise farming and impose import restrictions on agricultural goods that waste scarce government revenue, increase prices for local consumers, disadvantage poorer countries that depend on agriculture, penalise countries that work on the basis of a level playing field, and ultimately don’t preserve the local jobs and lifestyles that they pretend they do, but merely subsidise inefficient business.

We show that taking a global perspective eliminates the inefficiencies and market distortions that sustained national subsidies cause.  We show that state welfare must be targeted and not impose unnecessary strain on national budgets.  We show that in many areas direct delivery of goods and services by government owned enterprises can be more efficient, effective and equitable than purely market driven solutions.

§ 3.5    Many voters put their own self interest ahead of the national interest or global issues.

We show that, contrary to the claims of free market ideologues, often voters put aside their personal interests and vote for what the think is best for the country.  Often this happens in times of crisis such as war.  But many voters are capable of taking a global perspective and vote for candidates supporting green environmental policies, peaceful resolution of international conflicts and greater global equality.

We show that it is normal to value truth, compassion, equality and so on.  We show that the evolutionary development of humans led to cooperation as much as competition.  By promoting this normality we can empower others to vote according to their consciences rather than their wallets.  We support political structures that encourage people to adopt a long term, global, humane perspective. 

§ 3.6    Many voters focus on identity politics and their group rather than wider social issues.

We show how people of diverse religious, ethnic and national backgrounds can retain the best aspects of these identity drivers while still promoting a reasonable global way. 

We show that people have many identities, and that our roles as parents and custodians of life can override narrower group interests.  We support educational initiatives that bring the widest possible perspectives to all of us, broadening our identities to include more people.

§ 3.7    Democratic leadership is difficult: voters are confused, or unaware of the issues.

Politicians in democratic countries often can't lead us on the right path because the electorate is wary of change, potentially adverse outcomes and dubious benefits of change.  Politicians pander to the media to get favourable publicity so that they can be elected or re-elected. 

Large corporations take control of media companies then appoint editors whose views conform to those of the owners.  For example, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox network in the USA and Silvio Berlusconi’s media outlets in Italy have seriously impacted the political agenda. 

Conservatives disparage government control of media in totalitarian and tyrannical countries but fail to see similar problems with so called “free media� controlled by the rich.  Even the New York Times wishes to maintain its intellectual authority, but negligently misled its readers by not questioning the US government as it prepared to invade Iraq.

We show that while artistic freedom and freedom of expression are essential, it is reasonable to regulate the media to provide a wide diversity of views, including supporting government funded and non-profit media organisations.

§ 3.8   Non-democratic countries (such as China) can potentially be decisive but are at greater risk of favouring the rulers’ vested interests, and at risk of imploding in revolt.

In totalitarian countries corruption is rife.  Communist Party leaders in China openly acknowledge the dangers of corruption.  Local revolts occur regularly, especially the outer provinces of Tibet and Sichuan: only ruthless oppression keeps the Chinese empire together.

On the other hand, a strong central government like China’s was able to contain its disastrous population explosion, by implementing the draconian one child policy, for which the world may in due course acknowledge its gratitude.  We can hope that the Chinese government will increase China’s energy efficiency to reduce its impact on climate change.

We show that we shouldn’t confine our efforts to national democracies, but support international cooperation with all countries.

§ 3.9    Many other states are simply ineffective, corrupt, or total failures.

We show that anarchy has not led to peaceful relations between equals but to chaos.  Local warlords may impose some sense of order for their own benefit.  Rampant corruption keeps ordinary people in poverty and hinders economic development.

We emphasise that stable, secure democratic government is a universal goal, not only for the sake of the citizens of each country, but for its neighbours and the world. 

§ 3.10  Responses to our democratic failures

We phrase our initial draft conclusion on addressing these global threats this way: