Democracy, part two
Last week, I took a historical approach to democracy and maybe spent a little too much ink on the structure employed in ancient Greece. However, I think understanding the history of governance is important to understanding where we are as a country and a culture.
In particular, one of the points I didn’t make last week is just how recent democracy is as a form of government. For a thousand or so years after ancient Greece fell under Roman rule, the word “democracy” was used pejoratively. The notion the people should have a say in governance was simply out of the question.
Dissent by the masses and revolutionary actions were the only recourse to dealing with monarchs and aristocracy which ruled by virtue of birth. These uprisings were usually violently suppressed or by the simple expediency of killing the leaders.
This is still happening as dissent is often met with a show of force. Consider U.S. President Donald Trump’s response to protesters at his campaign stops and his view of the free press. Or the treatment of protesters outside of the G8 and G20 summits in Toronto.
Around the world, democracy is a recent and still somewhat fragile form of government. Indeed, according to the Polity IV scale, the number of nations scoring eight or better on their analysis of democratic structures was zero in 1800, 12 by 1900, and only 60 in 2000. This scale uses factors such as freedom of expression and respect for human rights along with assessing the government structure.
With respect to our voting system, it has been criticized as simply following the British Parliamentary system. Not really surprising as there were few true democracies in the world upon which to base a precedence. Furthermore, our national parents – Britain and France – both used a form of single-member plurality in electing their parliaments.
But despite its relatively recent rise and the pervasiveness of democratic systems in most world government, it is still a work in progress. The core principles are there – liberty and equality – but are they truly at the core of our democracy?
I do not ask this question lightly because the idea everyone is equal is a core value and yet there are many people who would argue they are not treated as equal citizens at a variety of levels. And liberty is prescribed by the laws of the land. We put constraints on just what people can and cannot do. Governments make laws all the time which restrict our freedoms.
I am not saying I disagree with these laws. Personally, there are many – such as speed limits in school zones or not driving high – which I think are necessary for a civil society. But each law restricting the actions of people is an erosion of our liberty and should be considered very carefully before being passed.
Which leads to a further principle which I feel is a necessary component of our representational democracy – accountability.
How do we hold our elected officials to account? The simple answer is through elections. But what happens when there isn’t an election?
In 2014, 30 municipalities in B.C. had their mayors acclaimed. As of right now, the number of acclaimed mayors in B.C. is at 62. If a second candidate hadn’t come forward on the last day for nominations, Prince George would have seen its mayor acclaimed. Maybe the mayor has done a particularly good job of running the city or maybe potential candidates feared retaliation for running or maybe no one could be bothered, but acclamation eliminates the possibility of accountability.
Prince George is not actually anomalous. Our sister cities of Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo which are comparable in size and structure have seen dramatic declines in the number of mayoral candidates. In 2014, there were 10, eight, and 10 candidates respectively. As of right now, Elections BC is reporting two, three and three.
I am not sure what this says about the state of electoral system. It might have something to do with the four year term. Certainly, most of the small communities at the UBCM were opposed to extending the length of a term but the larger communities – Vancouver, Victoria, Surrey, etc. – won the vote.
It might have something to do with the remuneration for being mayor. In many small communities, it is little more than a stipend and not a salary.
In any case, an election is the opportunity to hold our elected representatives accountable for both their past actions and their future plans. It is a necessary part of a representational democracy. And it is a safeguard to ensure we have equality and liberty for all.