Politics typically
operates like a badly run economy with unappetising choices between limited options
Current politics could be compared with the old Soviet
economy – consumers frustrated due to few choices between ill-conceived products
designed to fit what most people want but ultimately satisfying very few. Replace “consumers” and “products” with
“voters” and “parties” and this is an apt description of many Western
democracies. The analogy is even more
appropriate in that the solution in both cases is the same – reforms to make participation
easier for newcomers so as to create more competition.
How have things gone
wrong?
Public perception of politicians seems worse than ever. The aftermath of the global financial crisis has
further exacerbated this. Governments showed
themselves to be inept in managing their finances before the crisis and misguided
in their response to the ensuing economic slump. Though elected to serve for the good of the
country, governments often prove themselves unable or unwilling to do so.
A number of examples spring to mind. The United States came to the brink of defaulting over its debt and almost triggered another global financial crisis
due to a reluctance on the part of its politicians to compromise. The nation states of Europe almost destroyed
more than half a century of integration and spreading democracy across the
continent by refusing to band together to help out the weaker EU members until
the central bank stepped in. The economic recoveries in many countries
have also struggled to gain traction as government policies have been more of a hindrance than a help.
The argument could be made that this is not the Soviet Union
and democracy gives us a choice of government.
But this choice is often an illusion and often times boils down to
selecting the least worst option. To
take a more pessimistic view, the most common political strategy appears to be
to make voters dislike the other party more than your own. This only works when the electorate is faced
with limited options as is typically the case in countries where two parties
dominate.
Outflank the other party on a few key issues and the voters
have no other choice but to tolerate your policies. The UK Labour Party lost the public trust by
overspending in the lead-up to the global financial crisis, thus giving the current
Tory-led government a freer rein on its economic policy. As a result, the British have been lumped with austerity despite the need for measures to boost aggregate demand. In the US, the Tea Party has infiltrated the
Republican Party making it unpalatable for most voters resulting in a second
term for an Obama administration which has been slow to act and disappointing in delivering on its promises of change. The results of the European elections in May 2014 are yet another example of how mainstream parties are failing voters.
Change is possible
An economy with such poor products on offer would collapse
but our political system continues to stumble on with voters choosing to tune
out instead. Reforms more typical in
economics provide an option for changing this – more competition.
One key area would be changes to the voting system. Elections using the first-past-the-post
format hamper change by ensuring a large number of safe seats for each party
while preventing smaller parties from getting into power. New political parties would shake up politics
by bringing in ideas in contrast to the stale left and right divide that still
dominates politics. Coalition governments
do not always work (such as in Italy), but are not a recipe for sclerosis in politics as the
experiences of the UK government have shown over the past few years.
Such changes may not bring about anything as profound as the
fall of the Berlin Wall, but any change from the status quo is likely to be an
improvement.
No comments:
Post a Comment