Its almost a year since my last post – and slightly strange that the trigger should be (nearly) the same. There have been a number of things that, perhaps, could have been written about in that time – maybe a few that should have been – but my thoughts never got written down. This does not mean that there is only one thread going through my mind these days – although the fact that the previous post was on a very similar topic may make it look like that.
The events of last night on either side of the Atlantic highlighted to me (again) that there is something unsatisfactory about politics as we now experience it. In the UK Brexit has happened – or at least we have entered the transition which will probably bring with it a whole new raft of conundrums – if that is even a thing!! Meanwhile “across the pond” the circus that is the impeachment trial continued to play out highlighting the real difficulties of getting at “the truth”.
It is not new for me to suggest that the accepted form of elected government is not without its flaws. Democracy is, I think, still the preferred option when it comes to any sort of rule – but implementing democracy in a fair and reasonable way is – and always has been – difficult. I am going to focus on the impeachment in this blog – but only to highlight the ‘problems’ with democracy as it is practiced in many areas of the world.
Partisanship (see again the usandthemism in the previous blog post) is perhaps the primary hurdle for any democracy. It is inevitable that in any group of people there are going to be minority views and – inevitably – the majority view will not necessary be the “right” one (depending on the definition of “right” of course – may come back to that argument). One of the points of democracy is that the minority have a voice – however in most democracies it is a voice that – even if listened to – is often shouted down.
This is even worse when the rules for majority are skewed in any way. You might say – how can that be – but that is almost always the case especially when partisanship is the ruling ideology. The current situation in the USA highlights this quite well. There is a president who did not poll more votes than his rival, but got his majority through the “rules” of the electoral college. These rules were put there for good reason, no doubt, but they skew the playing field when it comes to the election – no one could argue with that.
So – there are undoubtedly flaws in any democratic system which are there because the “one person one vote” idea does not necessarily result in elections that produce the “right” representatives of the people. Even so – the Founding Fathers sought to put in place checks and balances to avoid any abuse of the system.
The ultimate sanction is impeachment – which is made deliberately “hard” – but in this particular case has been made even more difficult due to the actions of those involved. Frankly, some of the things that have been said – by Democrats as well as Republicans – have seemed ludicrous when taken out of context, even when they are “understandable” when in context. Just because they are understandable does not mean they are right!!
One of the president’s lawyers argued that as long as the president believed that his re-election was “in the good of the country” then it was permissible to do anything that helped that re-election – WHAT – which president (or presidential candidate) EVER would not think that he or she being elected was “in the good of the country”? Wow – that was a good one.
A senator argued that even if you believe that the president’s actions were impeachable it was not necessarily “best for the country” to remove him/her from office.
From my rather distant and perhaps skewed viewpoint the fact that there is a key participant in this whole thing standing on the sidelines whilst excerpts from a forthcoming book are drip-fed by a newspaper into the process surely should at least trigger curiosity. If there is one thing that I definitely agree with from the democratic side it is that everyone should be interested in getting at “the truth” and “the facts” – and not (as some argued) some of the truth and some of the facts – but ALL of it. Once you reach that point – then you can make a judgement.
However, the real issue is that this judgement is bound to be a subjective one. The facts, as they are already known, are not really being argued – what is being argued is whether or not it constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” sufficient to remove the president from office and that is in this case going to be greatly predicated by your point of view.
Here another fact is pertinent – 53 republican senators versus 47 democratic senators – and their point of view is highly partisan – that has been demonstrated in the votes – even though there are plenty of signs that when it comes to a more nuanced view (as against the stark yea or nae of the voting process) that many senators are nearer the middle ground. So here we have a tool (impeachment) that can be wielded in only one way – resulting in every impeachment ending in acquittal. Not because the presidents did no wrong – but because the senate was unwilling to remove them from office.
Here we are back to “the majority view is necessarily the right one” – poppycock would be a good description of that – and I hope that most people deep down realise that is the case. There are a huge number of issues where the majority view – in the past – has been shown to be wrong or downright evil.
It would be great of we could design a democratic system that worked on some sort of different principle – where “right” overcame “might” with more regularity. This is especially the case where there is a huge doubt over what actually is “right” – I am still of the opinion that NO ONE knows whether the UK is better off in or out of the EU. When it comes to “what is right” people will each have there own ways of coming to a conclusion – as I have argued elsewhere, whenever someone makes a decision the conclusion is ALWAYS the right one – for that person, given their knowledge at that time, an in the context the decision was made. You can always look back on decisions and see the folly – but that doesn’t make it a wrong choice AT THE TIME. The reason that some decisions become folly is that things change. Just the act of making a decision changes things – carrying out whatever actions are required changes things – learning new information changes things – and so on.
So – those voting to acquit the president are – in their individual circumstances – making the right decision – it will be interesting to see how many look back on that in a few weeks/months/years and recognise it as folly – in the same way as many senators and others have been (I hope) embarrassed by clips of what they said or did during previous impeachment trials.
In the meantime – if anyone has any ideas on how to design a better democratic system – lets be hearing it…