Sham Democracy
Created | Updated Jan 28, 2002
Note: this is a copy of an article I wrote on the 15th February 2001 for "Take Issue!" - details in my user space.
The recent American presidential election focused attention on the inadequacy of the electoral college system in the States. This striking example of the breakdown of meaningful democracy by the ostensibly most democratic nation on Earth only highlights the enormous problems democracy faces today, and the problems are not only restricted to the States.
What is democracy? You can't pin it down precisely, but the essential aspect of democracy is that in some sense the people decide how the country is to be run, and no individual has more say in that decision than any other. So, if the systems of government make it impossible for the people to express their preference for the way the country is to be run, or if any individual has more say in the decision than any other, then democracy has been violated. Both of these happen in our society. The first happens because the necessity of strategic voting, engendered by the plurality (or first past the post) voting system we use, intertwined with the two party system, means that candidates can be elected even if the majority of people would prefer not to have them run the country. However, the second issue is more pressing.
One way of evaluating whether or not we live in a democracy is to ask if money can buy an increased say in political decisions or if it can affect how people vote. If it does then we do not live in a fully democratic society, because in a democracy everyone is given an equal say in how the country is to be run, regardless of their wealth. However, it is increasingly clear that money does allow both direct and indirect control of politics. For instance, "cash for questions", private or business donations to party funds and campaign funds, direct political control by businesses using the threat of plant closure for instance, bribes in any form, and so on. Moreover, many of the political decision makers themselves are businessmen. A striking example is when New Labour appointed Mark Moody-Stuart, chairman of Shell, to chair the renewable energy task force!
Another issue is campaign funds. It would be unfair and wrong to say that the candidate who spends most will win the election. However, funding does have an influence in much the same way as in advertising. That is, once a certain critical level of spending has been reached, increasing spending above that limit does little to improve your chances. However, that critical level can be very high, and if your spending is below that level, your party will probably not have enough presence even to be taken as a serious candidate. So, although money does not buy the election, a certain level of spending is necessary to be a serious candidate. The amount needing to be spent to stand a chance in a general election is almost certainly beyond what anyone could achieve without substantial business backing, which would be unattainable unless the party was working in the interests of business. If, however, campaign and party funds were provided for completely by government, with business not allowed to contribute, elections could be won more on the relative merits of policies rather than depending on funding.
Consider the relative merits of (a) having a sham democracy in which only those parties which placate the interests of big business are given enough funding to mount a meaningful electoral campaign, or (b) having a genuine democracy in which every party (or perhaps every party with a certain minimum amount of popular support in order to discourage crackpots) is given equal funding, regardless of their business affiliations. Although option (b) seems to be the more expensive option on the face of it, because taxpayers' money is being used to fund all sorts of parties, even when they aren't very popular. In the long run, I suspect that (b) would cost the majority of people less than (a), for various reasons. First of all, it's incorrect to suppose that the public isn't paying for business donations to politics, they're paying in the cost of the products and services they buy from the companies. Secondly, if the level of spending was strictly controlled and equal for all parties, it would probably amount to less in total, because the levels would not skyrocket over time as they do now. So the common objection that equal funding for all political parties is impractical seems hollow.
Business can also indirectly control politics by exerting an influence on people's political predilection, mainly through the manipulation of their prejudices using the mass media. Advertisers can exert an enormous amount of influence (possibly even unintentionally), just by their choice of where to advertise. Those newspapers which hold views broadly supported by big business will get plenty of advertisers wishing to advertise in their papers, those that hold views not supported by big business, maybe even against their interests, will find themselves bereft of advertisers' money and will vanish into obscurity (many of them do exist, but have predictably low readerships). So it's perfectly plausible to explain the corporate control of business without having to resort to conspiracy theories. You don't need to imagine powerful businesses telephoning newspaper editors and telling them which stories shouldn't appear, to see that business controls the media. It happens automatically. When news corporations themselves become enormous, the situation is even worse because the news is not then bowing to corporate interests, it is corporate interests.
Another way to counter the antidemocratic influence of big business on society is a democratic cure to a democratic ill, the democratisation of business. The economy of General Motors was larger in 1999 than each of Denmark, Israel, South Africa and many others. Of the top 100 economies in the world, only 49 are countries, 51 are corporations. When corporations wield this much economic power, and presumably wield proportionate political clout, should they not be governed by the same rules as countries themselves? "Rogue states" with similar economic power would be considered an enormous threat to world freedom. Given the enormous success of democratic nations compared to undemocratic nations, it would seem difficult to justify that democratic firms would be unsuccessful.
To sum up, it is easy to see that our current form of democracy is far from satisfactory, and increasingly controlled by big business. Democracy is a grand ideal, and although the world has yet to see a true democracy in action, maybe it can be made to work.
The recent American presidential election focused attention on the inadequacy of the electoral college system in the States. This striking example of the breakdown of meaningful democracy by the ostensibly most democratic nation on Earth only highlights the enormous problems democracy faces today, and the problems are not only restricted to the States.
What is democracy? You can't pin it down precisely, but the essential aspect of democracy is that in some sense the people decide how the country is to be run, and no individual has more say in that decision than any other. So, if the systems of government make it impossible for the people to express their preference for the way the country is to be run, or if any individual has more say in the decision than any other, then democracy has been violated. Both of these happen in our society. The first happens because the necessity of strategic voting, engendered by the plurality (or first past the post) voting system we use, intertwined with the two party system, means that candidates can be elected even if the majority of people would prefer not to have them run the country. However, the second issue is more pressing.
One way of evaluating whether or not we live in a democracy is to ask if money can buy an increased say in political decisions or if it can affect how people vote. If it does then we do not live in a fully democratic society, because in a democracy everyone is given an equal say in how the country is to be run, regardless of their wealth. However, it is increasingly clear that money does allow both direct and indirect control of politics. For instance, "cash for questions", private or business donations to party funds and campaign funds, direct political control by businesses using the threat of plant closure for instance, bribes in any form, and so on. Moreover, many of the political decision makers themselves are businessmen. A striking example is when New Labour appointed Mark Moody-Stuart, chairman of Shell, to chair the renewable energy task force!
Another issue is campaign funds. It would be unfair and wrong to say that the candidate who spends most will win the election. However, funding does have an influence in much the same way as in advertising. That is, once a certain critical level of spending has been reached, increasing spending above that limit does little to improve your chances. However, that critical level can be very high, and if your spending is below that level, your party will probably not have enough presence even to be taken as a serious candidate. So, although money does not buy the election, a certain level of spending is necessary to be a serious candidate. The amount needing to be spent to stand a chance in a general election is almost certainly beyond what anyone could achieve without substantial business backing, which would be unattainable unless the party was working in the interests of business. If, however, campaign and party funds were provided for completely by government, with business not allowed to contribute, elections could be won more on the relative merits of policies rather than depending on funding.
Consider the relative merits of (a) having a sham democracy in which only those parties which placate the interests of big business are given enough funding to mount a meaningful electoral campaign, or (b) having a genuine democracy in which every party (or perhaps every party with a certain minimum amount of popular support in order to discourage crackpots) is given equal funding, regardless of their business affiliations. Although option (b) seems to be the more expensive option on the face of it, because taxpayers' money is being used to fund all sorts of parties, even when they aren't very popular. In the long run, I suspect that (b) would cost the majority of people less than (a), for various reasons. First of all, it's incorrect to suppose that the public isn't paying for business donations to politics, they're paying in the cost of the products and services they buy from the companies. Secondly, if the level of spending was strictly controlled and equal for all parties, it would probably amount to less in total, because the levels would not skyrocket over time as they do now. So the common objection that equal funding for all political parties is impractical seems hollow.
Business can also indirectly control politics by exerting an influence on people's political predilection, mainly through the manipulation of their prejudices using the mass media. Advertisers can exert an enormous amount of influence (possibly even unintentionally), just by their choice of where to advertise. Those newspapers which hold views broadly supported by big business will get plenty of advertisers wishing to advertise in their papers, those that hold views not supported by big business, maybe even against their interests, will find themselves bereft of advertisers' money and will vanish into obscurity (many of them do exist, but have predictably low readerships). So it's perfectly plausible to explain the corporate control of business without having to resort to conspiracy theories. You don't need to imagine powerful businesses telephoning newspaper editors and telling them which stories shouldn't appear, to see that business controls the media. It happens automatically. When news corporations themselves become enormous, the situation is even worse because the news is not then bowing to corporate interests, it is corporate interests.
Another way to counter the antidemocratic influence of big business on society is a democratic cure to a democratic ill, the democratisation of business. The economy of General Motors was larger in 1999 than each of Denmark, Israel, South Africa and many others. Of the top 100 economies in the world, only 49 are countries, 51 are corporations. When corporations wield this much economic power, and presumably wield proportionate political clout, should they not be governed by the same rules as countries themselves? "Rogue states" with similar economic power would be considered an enormous threat to world freedom. Given the enormous success of democratic nations compared to undemocratic nations, it would seem difficult to justify that democratic firms would be unsuccessful.
To sum up, it is easy to see that our current form of democracy is far from satisfactory, and increasingly controlled by big business. Democracy is a grand ideal, and although the world has yet to see a true democracy in action, maybe it can be made to work.
