Developing
a “legitimacy quotient” for the political systems of nations
In any discussion of the merits of political
systems the basic question is: what makes a political system legitimate
for the people governed by that political system? Asking that question leads on
to this one: Can a series of tests be developed to be applied across all the
different types of society that we find on our planet to produce some sort of
“legitimacy quotient or rating”?
To start with, we can easily identify the main
factor that makes us as individuals contented or discontented with the
political structures that rule us on a national or local basis. This is simply
the degree to which we feel “involved” in the legislative process. To use
business jargon: to what extent do we “own” the decisions made on our behalf by
local or national administrations? The answer is pretty consistently: none.
The consequence of this “non-ownership” is a quite predictable sense of
irresponsibility and alienation prevalent in the community. This is what gives
rise to the “us” and “them” cynicism with which most people in almost all the
self-titled “democracies” regard the political systems that claim to rule them
on their behalf.
To illustrate this point here are just a few of the
New Zealand national issues collected over the past couple of decades and
listed in no particular order of importance or complexity or current relevance:
1.
Human rights legislation
2.
NZ membership of the ANZUS pact
3.
Visits of nuclear-powered ships to NZ ports
4.
Section 59 of the Crimes Act
5.
Health reforms
6.
The amalgamation of small local councils into
larger ones
7.
Labour laws
8.
Minimum age for a driving license
9.
Minimum age for consuming alcohol
10.Decriminalisation
of cannabis use
11.Abolition
of physical punishments in schools
12.Public
holiday entitlements
13.The
Kyoto Protocol
14.Genetic
Engineering
15.Nuclear power
And here are a few sample local issues from two of
our main cities:
Auckland:
1.
The Britomart development
2.
Ratepayer finance for minority parades
3.
Public transport development
Wellington:
1.
Sale of ratepayers’ assets
2.
Extension of urban motorway
3.
Waterfront development
4.
Use of 1080 against possums
Only the people have the right and the duty to
decide all of those issues. At present this doesn’t happen because
decision-making power has been seized, quite arbitrarily, by organisations
claiming to have a “mandate” to take such decisions “on behalf of” a locality
or of the nation. The authority on which they base their claim to make those
decisions on our behalf is fraudulent. It is a fraud because it is based on the
notion that that tiny number of individuals “elected” in local and national
“elections” thereby has the absolute power to impose their views and prejudices
on the rest of us.
Plainly what is wrong here is that these
individuals “elected” to run the day-to-day administration of our society have
then gone on to usurp the sovereignty of the people to make new policy
decisions and impose new rules without seeking the formal approval of the
people for those new policy decisions and new rules. They get away with this
because we have no rules that formally recognize the people’s absolute right to
control the making and unmaking of the rules by which they wish to live. In
other words:
We do not have a democratic constitution.
What then is a legitimate authority for making
legislation legitimate in the minds of the people for whom that legislation has
been made? Or, putting the question another way: Where should control over the
rules by which the rules of a society of human beings are made or altered
ultimately rest? There is only one answer: the people, from whom all legitimacy
flows, and legitimacy flows directly from sovereignty.
Where does sovereignty reside? It resides,
exclusively and inalienably, with each and every member of society. It simply
cannot be delegated. No group or institution within a society can claim
sovereignty without intrinsically usurping the sovereignty of all the members
of that society. Therefore a society has a truly legitimate political system
only where that political system is directly controlled by the sovereign power
of the people.
Coming then to the main point of this discussion:
is it possible to devise a measure of, say, the “legitimacy quotient” (LQ) by
which the variety of political entities that co-habit on this planet may be
evaluated and ranked?
To do this we need to identify the major factors
that determine the way human beings live their lives in human societies. In my
view these are the three essential ones:
1.
A democratic constitution;
2.
Freedom of the press:
3.
A civil society of citizens that respect one
another.
All three are intimately linked, as it is hard to
deny one and uphold the other two. That doesn’t mean that exceptions exist. For
instance: Hong Kong. In that special administrative region of the People’s
Republic of China the press is remarkably free, by comparison with the rest of
the PRC. And the highly developed civil society of Hong Kong is respectful of
the rights of individual citizens. Even the concept of a “civil society” is in
its political infancy across the border.
And yet (and this is a big “and yet”!) Hong Kong
does not even have rudimentary “representative democracy”. Sure, very unusual
historical conditions have allowed that unfettered society to survive and
thrive, but I mention it just to show that I am aware of exceptions.
Let’s express my notion of
an LQ as a simple equation:
DC + P + L = LQ
where:
“DC” stands for “Democratic
Constitution”
“P” stands for “Press
freedom” and
“L” stands for “Legitimate
laws”
The total of these three
components is then expressed as a score out of 100 points
Starting with the “L”
factor, it is quite clear that when the people participate directly in the
rules by which the rules of the society in which they live are made, they will
respect these rules because they have created them. And equally clearly, the
people will demand the same respect for those rules by anyone they elect to
positions of responsibility.
The “P” factor is a vital
component in the legitimacy of a political system. Without the complete freedom
of the media to report what is going on in a society and to provide for the
open presentation of all points of view, the legitimacy of a political system
becomes compromised. Again it is very obvious that it is profoundly in the interest
of the people not to trammel the media with restrictions, for these will
undermine the people’s own trust in the media.
But the over-arching factor
in the equation above is the “DC” for Democratic Constitution, without which
the other two factors are totally vulnerable. It contains three sub-components
of equal value that represent the essential rights that belong to the people:
“I” stands for the right of Initiative
“R” stands for the right of Recall
“V” stands for the right of Veto
Now I give the value of
“20” to each of those sub-components, and then “20” also for the “P” factor and
for the “L” factor.
This is the equation from
above with their maximum values:
(I+R+V) + P + L = LQ
(20+20+20) + 20 + 20 = 100.
It follows therefore, that
societies scoring a high LQ are going to be more responsive to the wishes of
their citizens than ones with a low score.
Let’s apply this LQ concept
to a few societies around the globe, including our own.
I have selected these
countries: The People’s Republic of China, Singapore, NZ, USA, and Switzerland,
and have awarded what I consider are the values applicable to each one for the 3 major factors that make a society legitimate.
|
|
PRC |
SIN |
NZ |
USA |
CH |
|
DC |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
51 |
|
P |
1 |
10 |
18 |
18 |
18 |
|
L |
2 |
11 |
11 |
14 |
20 |
|
LQ |
2 |
21 |
29 |
42 |
89 |
And the
graph below displays the dramatic range of LQs applicable to those nations on
this planet.Only Switzerland, and, to a reasonable degree, a number of states
of the US, show any real respect for the democratically expressed wishes of
their citizens.The rest of our planet ranges from the mediocre rating of New
Zealand to the abysmal rating of the PRC.
Here are my reasons for the points I have awarded
for the 3 main factors:
Democratic
Constitution
The PRC and Singapore have constitutions, but they
are wholly un-democratic as they are not
controlled or modifiable by referendums of the people in any way. This is a
standard feature in every constitution except that of Switzerland.
Modifications are controlled by representatives in more open societies or
imposed by decree in dictatorships. 0 points.
New Zealand simply does not have a democratic constitution. It has some
proto-constitutional “arrangements” that are completely outside the control of
the people; witness the imposition of a “supreme court”. 0 points
The USA has a Federal Constitution, but it contains
no provision for its amendment by referendums of the people. However, some of
the States do have constitutions that do provide for some such amendments, but,
and this is a massive BUT, such
amendments can be, and are, struck down by the Federal Supreme Court because it
is not under the control of the
people in any way! 10 points
In complete contrast, and it is quite unique, the
Swiss Constitution has embedded within itself completely two of the basic
component rights of democracy: Initiative and Veto. Not yet, though, the right
of Recall, but the absolutely crucial fact is that the people own their constitution. The will of the
people is supreme and cannot be struck down by any court. 51 points.
I have taken 8 points off because the right of
Recall is not formally embodied in the Swiss constitution. However, because it
is implicit in that no elected member of the Swiss Parliament who deliberately
tried to block the will of the people would stay in office for long, I think it
still merits 12 points.
I have taken one more point off because there are one or
two clauses that strictly speaking do not belong in a constitution, in
particular: outlawing forever the use of the death penalty. That is actually a
statute law and therefore stands below the constitution itself. The
constitution of a society is concerned with the systems and procedures for
governance, not any particular detail. It sets out the rules by which the rules
that govern a society are made.
Press freedom
The PRC régime exercises almost total control over
the media and exerts considerable effort to curbing the Internet. 1 point.
Singapore is a bit better. 10 points.
New Zealand, the US, and Switzerland are all pretty
good overall. 18 points.
Legitimate laws
Apart from the essential laws prohibiting theft and
murder, the PRC’s “legal” legitimacy is abysmal. 2 points.
Singapore and New Zealand are better owing really
to the relative freedom of the media. 11 points.
Because some of the States of the US do have
partially democratic constitutions, it scores better. 14 points.
For Switzerland there is no contest. It merits the
full score. 20 points.
Take a look at that graph again.
Isn’t it shocking that only one small country in
the heart of Europe has achieved democracy? And that it achieved this over 150
years ago?
What excuses do the rest of those nations that
claim to be “democratic” have for their failure to follow suit? It really is
quite obvious: the political élites of all those nations have carefully avoided
allowing that dangerous Swiss contagion anywhere near their “constitutions” or
“constitutional arrangements”. The notion that the people can instruct
the political élite to obey the people’s will and implement an initiative that
the people really want and need is absolute anathema. Equally abhorrent to the
political class are the ideas of “recall” – to kick out an elected
administrator, and of “veto” – to strike down a legislative proposal approved
by any elected assembly.
Our task then is clear:
Let us aim to raise the LQ of New Zealand to over 80% by
2020.
What are we waiting for? Only we, the people, can
grant to ourselves what is ours.
So how shall we go about wresting back the
Sovereignty that belongs to us?
In the brief and blunt Manifesto on this web site, I
propose that we “under-throw” the existing system by switching off its
food-supply, namely: our votes.
Once we have starved it into submission we can at
last put a democratic constitutional harness over the beast and from then on
make it obey our will.
Let’s get started. The “general election” planned
for 2008 is fair game.