On Wednesday the 19th of September 2012, I posted a blog titled Election – Time to Review and Think. In it I posted George Washington’s farewell address to the Nation in 1796, as he stood back from running for a third term as President of the United States. He did not think it a good idea. Originally published in David Claypoole's American Daily Advertiser on 19th September 1796 under the title "The Address of General Washington to The People of The United States on his declining of the Presidency of the United States," the letter was almost immediately reprinted in newspapers across the country and later in a pamphlet form.
It contained 51 paragraphs of advice and thoughts for consideration by those voting someone into high office. Paragraphs 20 – 22 could have been written yesterday and can apply to every country purporting to have a democracy and a system of suffrage.
20 - I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
21- This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
22 - The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
The last sentence of paragraph 22 seems more than somewhat appropriate given the forthcoming elections in the United States in particular in 2022 and 2024.
There were no formal political parties in the United States in the 1780’s and 1790’s, and in that first election apparently less than 1.8% of the population actually voted. The 1790 census counted some 3 million people living in the United States which included some 600,000 slaves. So, in effect, only those male adults out of 2.4 million would have been eligible to vote. Some 42,782 souls managed to vote. However, such was the popularity of George Washington that it was probably a foregone conclusion that he would be elected. There would have been no campaigning in the sense of what we have today. The candidates’ qualifications depended on reputation for deeds done. It must have been broadly about personality and stature in the community. A bit of fame and distinction went a very long way. There would have been some press as well and perhaps some meetings and rallies, but nothing like the party electoral armies in play today, with the ability to spend millions to promote a candidate by every possible means.
Despite the retiring President’s warnings 225 years ago (approximately 7 generations – some would only have to trace back 7 people to discover a relative who might have voted in that 1788/9 election) political parties were inevitable. The sheer growth of populations made any other possibility unworkable. Differing groups with differing aspirations required representation in the formation of any governing body. It is as Washington states, ‘inseparable from our nature’. Nonetheless, the tenacity with which political parties hold to their particular view, and the forceful determination with which they express it, can lead to an inability to compromise. Then, the very structure of the democracy it seeks to uphold, begins to crack under the strain of conflicting points of view, and the edifice falls leaving the ruins of Public Liberty, out of which despotism can rise. It then becomes necessary, in order to restore Public Liberty, to be rid of the despot and the cycle starts all over again.
Does that have to be the case? Should not the zealots and orthodoxies be riven from society?
Is violence truly inseparable from our nature? It certainly seems to be endemic.
Democratically speaking, so far as the United States is concerned, most of the electorate is against a candidate that exhibits despotic tendencies; yet it is far from certain that enough of the majority will turn out to vote in midterm elections, or for that matter any election. The turnout of voters, particularly at this moment in time, is crucial in any truly democratic society. There are only 22 countries when voting is compulsory. I cannot say that all the countries on the list have achieved true democracy, nor can I say that the voting is entirely free of influence or coercion; however, it is a requirement that the citizen must comply with.
There are some countries, with minority governments, where it suits those in power, not to have compulsory voting, or they would be out of office and probably never get elected again. I include the United Kingdom in this. The refusal to have compulsory voting or proportional representation, is always accompanied by the proposition that the liberty of the citizen would be at stake. The freedom to choose, or not, as the case may be, is sacrosanct; yet I note for some obscure reason, the Conservative party now seeks to impose the necessity of ID cards in order to vote. To what end one asks? Most likely to put off the people who might vote against them.
I would be in favour of compulsory voting, but I would also favour a system, whereby voting rights were extended and more frequent. The citizens should have a right to change their collective mind. Not just once every 4 to 5 years, but more often, if needs must, particularly when it comes to referenda. Why should one vote be carved in stone. Circumstances change and people change with them. If the situation is so obviously in flux, then fresh consensus must be sought. Why should the citizens of 2100 live with the dictates of the citizens of 2000? The current citizenry does not put up with some of the things that were accepted in 1900, certainly as regards misogyny and feminism. Grow up.
The dismal news coming out of the Middle East, Myanmar, Yemen etc. is horrific. Indeed, the list of ongoing conflicts in April 2021 is like a belt of fire around the equator.
Could truly democratic elections change this map. “If voting changed anything they’d abolish it” is listed by the Oxford Reference as a common graffito in the 1970’s; however, “If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it” is sometimes attributed to Mark Twain. “If voting made a difference, it would be illegal” or “…it would never be allowed” and on and on. It is a common saying that comes up with every election. One can see that the vote of November 2020, changed things in the United States. That has resulted in many States now trying to abolish voting with new draconian legislation. Plus ça Change. As stated before, something of a similar nature is happening under the Conservative Party in the UK, a government elected by some 30% of the electorate, yet they have a decisive majority in Parliament. How is that democracy?
My brain is a bit of a butterfly at the moment, drifting on the wind, but too much information pouring in and one doesn’t quite know where to light.
Suffice it to say that taking part in the political process is part of
our duty of care. We owe it to each other to try to improve our governance, and
hopefully choose the leadership that will help provide us with all the services
that each individual citizen requires. Home, health, education, employment,
recreation, in short, a decent and peaceful life. Plus, the odd bottle of
champagne wouldn’t hurt.
No comments:
Post a Comment