The campaign leading to the next general elections is perceptibly building up and, once again, democracy will be in the dock.
In this polarised, tight, little island, democracy has often been under a cloud. Electors who turned away from it came back to its doctrine. Much depends on the inherent strength of democracy – its vulnerability and its inherent strengths.
Democracy is often confused with representative government, and often used as a synonym for liberty. The essence of representative government is that the people do not govern. They elect periodically those who shall govern on their behalf.
Democracy is a concept which implies that sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and such power is exercised, either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In its modern use, the term ‘democracy’ denotes a social state in which all have equal rights, without arbitrary or hereditary privileges or differences.
In essence, it means that the administration of government is in the hands of the many, not the few.
Tradition of resistance
The whole issue is confused by party loyalties, religious feelings and by a multitude of political topics of the hour, ranging from the condition of agriculture to the aspirations of people reaching pensionable age.
Democracy, as understood in the Western world, has a tradition of resistance to authority. In truth, authority is not always as black as it is painted. It may have, at times, some right on its side, and those fighting on the libertarian side may not always be spotless, clear minded or unanimous. In winning, they may over-reach themselves. All of this is true, but tradition remains.
Root of democratic
sentiment
The root of democratic sentiment is, therefore, psychological. Voters will consent to do many things – even vote to increase taxation, for instance – which they will fight against until death, if taxation is imposed upon them without their consent or without as much as an explanation.
What electors want is a government that governs, that acts and doesn’t deceive them or let them down by sheer incompetence.
The principal – though not the only – expression of democracy, therefore, is through the government, and the government implies a working majority in Parliament, which is what elections are all about.
At this point, democracy demands a check upon hasty decisions of the mass, and upon a scrutiny of the professionalism of politicians.
An increasing number of “floating voters” are not prepared to swallow whole the political parties. Party politicians habitually stick to the grooves and move like a train. Only the “big guns” can afford an occasional flight of fancy, and coin a phrase not too difficult for the many.
Weak spots
The floating vote is alive to these weak spots. The spread of education and the advancement of telecommunications have increased the ratio of able brains and strengthened what is generally understood as the democratic sentiment.
All of this will come into play at the next general elections. The “floating vote” now forms a solid core with a firm crust. It will not be easily duped. The average floating voter will not lightly take his or her politics from the newspapers they read or the TV programmes that bombard them. They will navigate by the star of their experience and aspirations.
It is in this context that the floating vote is likely to be amenable to change – to seeking solutions to the problems that set floating voters back – like sustained taxation, bureaucratic incompetence, the exorbitant cost of the government, official arrogance and corruption, real or perceived.
To my mind, this will be the main overhanging issue dominating the electoral campaign. There will be massive attempts by spin doctors to change the subject, and to steer floating voters away from their main concerns.
In the end, the final outcome will depend on whether or not the floating vote will be distracted and manoeuvred to shift its focus from obstacles that have barred, and continue to bar, its progress.
[email protected]