Is Universal Suffrage Logical? Is it Moral?

Not everyone is a fan of democracy. Other than those who outright prefer dictatorship of one kind or another, some critics simply don't trust all citizens having equal power over their governors. Jason Brennan, a Georgetown University political philosopher, expresses just such a view in his book Against Democracy. Brennan believes that because most people are ignorant of the issues allowing them to impose their will on everyone is immoral. He particularly takes issue with universal suffrage, i.e. one citizen /one vote. As alternatives, he offers various methods of rule by the knowledgeable, which he calls epistocracy.

The idea that only the well-informed should guide society has always been around, dating back at least to Plato. Brennan's book is, nonetheless, well-timed. The two most prominent modern democracies, Britain and the United States, are both currently being run by buffoons. Of course neither buffoon was elected by the people—Trump by the electoral college and Johnson by the Conservative Party—so we can't really blame all the ignorant voters, just some. Nonetheless, both countries are becoming travesties of democracy largely because of voters who were angry but ill-informed, a dangerous combination.

Still, I remain loyal to one citizen/one vote. Although there are those who couldn't care less about voting, I think to most people it has great symbolic value. It says they are as valued as citizens as anyone else. This I think is important, even though Brennan  is quite right that most people have a poor grasp of most issues.

But this is a personal conceit. It's just me. Is there some fundamental reason why people would cleave to democracy? Why the vote has symbolic appeal?

The emotional reason must arise somehow from what we, a social species, evolved to be, our natural morality so to speak. Evolutionary biologists talk about reciprocal altruism, “a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.” In other words, I do you a favour when you need one, you do me a favour when I need one, and if we don't cheat we are both better off. (Cheating is the other half of the story, and an interesting half it is.) From reciprocal altruism perhaps comes our sense of fair play and from fair play, democracy, bequeathed you might say by evolution. ... Perhaps.

The logical reason may simply be recognizing that democracy is essential to a free society. There is no absolute freedom. As long as we live in groups we must have rules. The question of freedom in a society of rules becomes a question of who makes the rules. If one man makes them, or a group of men make them, then we are servants of that man or those men. We are not free. The only way we can be free is to make the rules ourselves. And it follows that we must all have an equal say, i.e. democracy, in making them. If one person has less of a say then that person is that much a servant of the rest of us, that much less free. To accept epistocracy is to accept a diminution of freedom. And that I’m very leery indeed of doing.

As for those who are willing to give up their freedom, well .... they choose to be servants and that's a whole other thing. They will have their own justification both emotionally and logically. Ultimately each person's choice will depend on their personal genetic and cultural history and mine tilts me toward freedom and democracy.

Even if we were to choose those citizens we thought qualified to vote, would knowledge be the best criteria? An important one, yes, but how about judgment, honesty, tolerance, compassion or even simple common decency? You can always gain the knowledge you need, but can you gain compassion?

In any case, people don't vote on issues (except in a referendum); they vote to elect representatives to vote on issues. And they don't vote in isolation. They are greatly aided by political parties who present platforms outlining their positions on issues. This is in fact one of political parties most important functions. Almost everyone I know votes by party, not by candidate, and even people who don't pay a lot of attention to issues have a general idea about what the parties represent.

And once representatives are elected, they are well paid and provided with ample resources to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the issues. They have the entire civil service to draw on, and the civil service contains experts in all the areas they will have to deal with. Indeed, some might argue that a good civil service is more important to a healthy democracy than the elected representatives.

And once legislation is drawn up, it must pass scrutiny in the cabinet, the brightest and best of the representatives (one hopes), then survive three readings in the House of Commons and finally face review in the Senate, before receiving assent. It isn't as if policy was concocted by the ignorant masses on a whim and imposed willy-nilly.

Certainly democracy as it is practiced can use a lot of improvement. But overall it has done better than any other form of government, so it would seem sensible to improve it before leaping into some form of epistocracy. Interestingly, one form Brennan discusses, the "enfranchisement lottery," which involves choosing a random set of voters by lot and immersing them in a competence-building program, sounds very similar to citizens' assemblies, a form of decision-making I consider quite democratic and think should be used a great deal more. I have discussed citizens' assemblies elsewhere.

As long as lots of room for improvement is available, allowing everyone the equal right to simply pick a candidate they think mostly shares their values, or favours their interests, and letting those selected candidates deal with the issues—with experts at their elbows—would seem to be the sensible choice. Democracy has proven to the best of all the many systems we've tried so jumping to something new before we have given it every chance would be a risky venture.

My Reluctant Strategic Vote

Here's an irony. I'm forced to vote Liberal (again) because Justin Trudeau betrayed me. No, it doesn't make any sense and, furthermore, it pisses me off. But that's just the way it is.

In his 2015 campaign, Justin promised that that election would be the last under the grievously undemocratic first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system. He reiterated his promise in the throne speech. He then established a committee to study the issue and they did, thoroughly, spending hours of their time and effort, and that of others, on the project, and concluded by recommending a referendum that would propose a "proportional electoral system." Trudeau then flushed the recommendation down the toilet, in effect dismissing the entire exercise, including his promise.

I suspect he intended a form of ranked voting system to win the day because it would favour the Liberals, but when he lost control of the process he lost interest in the whole idea. Under a proportional system he wouldn't have gained 100 per cent of the power with the support of only 40 per cent of the people, and politicians really, really don't want to give that up.

So why am I voting Liberal? This week the Liberal candidate in my riding, Kent Hehr, knocked at my door and I explained it to him. I chastised his leader for betraying us on what is a very important issue, but assured him that he would still have my vote, even though I'm a member of another party. Two reasons. One, because he has represented me as both an MLA and an MP and I think he has done a good job. And two, most importantly, because he is the only candidate who can beat the Conservative. He assured me that he too felt betrayed on voting reform and would take my opinion back to Ottawa.

Under a democratic voting system I could vote for the candidate that most closely represents my views but under FPTP, in my riding it's either Liberal or Conservative. My preferred parties simply don't get enough share of the popular vote to win the constituency. A vote for one of them is a wasted vote. It does nothing but help the Conservative. So, once again, I' m back to second-rate democracy and strategic voting. Thanks, Justin.

Inhabiting the Radical Middle

While I take an active interest in politics, and have always been a member of a political party (sometimes two), I no longer get directly involved in election campaigns. My reason is one that many people share—politics just seems to bring out the worst in people. Enter the world of political activity and you enter a world of self-righteousness. Your guys are always right and the other guys always wrong. You see this on peacock display on the election campaign trail and in question period in the House of Commons.

I confess to suffering from no little political self-righteousness myself. I am guilty of confirmation bias, i.e. selecting those facts that support my view and ignoring those that contradict it. I am inclined to put winning a political argument over sincerely trying to understand what the other guy is saying. And, yes, I mansplain. (Hey, I'm a blogger!)

I was delighted therefor to discover a set of self-correctives that I can use to keep my attitude in better balance. Aids to critical thinking, one might say. The set appear in a Linked In article entitled "Top Ten List on How to Inhabit the Radical Middle"  by Maggie Hanna, geologist and "consulting innovator." In case anyone may find Maggie's list as useful a tonic for bias as I do, I'm including it in full below. I intend to refresh my mind with it from time to time when I find my tolerance slipping. I tripped over a few bits, such as the Dalai Lama's comment on truth, but for the most part ... well, read on.

Maggie defines the radical middle as seeking to find common ground rather than trying to convert the opposition. She explains, "Occupying that space opens up the possibility for people in a divided debate to not only sincerely speak with each other, but also to form partnerships. What if those partnerships could form, not in spite of each person’s passionately held convictions, but because of them."

1. Temporarily loosen one’s grip on one’s own point of view. When we recognize that our own point of view has evolved over time, then we recognize that it can never be absolute. How is your perspective different from when you were 16 years old? Pretty different I bet. What will your perspective be in 10 years’ time? Not sure yet, but it will be different. We can always come back to our basecamp after ranging out, and return to the specialness of our own hard-won moral compass.

2. Ask oneself a BETTER question. The quality of our questions determines the quality of our lives. Our brains are hardwired to immediately go to work on whatever question we pose to it. If you ask yourself a disempowering question like, “Why is this person such a dip-turd? Or caustically annoying, or dumb as a bag of hammers?” … your mind will tell you why, but it will not advance your understanding of that person, their position, nor yourself. Instead we might ask a better question like, “Is there something, a word, an image, or a metaphor, in what this person is saying that is meant for me?” or “How could the opposite of what I think actually be true?” Those are questions worth turning one’s mind towards.

3. Occupy both your head and your heart at the same time. Wisdom is the marriage of knowledge and emotion; the head and the heart. Knowledge can be defined as our ability to organize categories in one’s mind. It is significant, but it is not wisdom. Real wisdom requires both mind and emotion. If one runs only on emotion without clarity, it is not wisdom. If one only has perception without heartfulness, it is not wisdom. It is the heart that provides those flashes of lucidity, recognition of resonance, and the acuteness of knowing that is undeniable. It is when we overcome the artificial barriers that separate the mind and heart that we can be in both places at once, 100% in our mind and 100% attuned to the information being shared with us from the heart. It is not an “either/or” proposition. It is a “both/and” way of being.

4. Be here now. The present is the only moment there is. Instead of obsessing about the past which has already happened, or worrying about the future which isn’t here yet; have a real interaction… now. We have to be to very much here to hear what otherwise would be missed.

5. Use one’s intuition to sense behind what a person is saying. Everyone has intuition. Intuition is the norm and the natural. It is not something that happens to us… it is us. When someone speaks against our firmly held belief or position, our tendency is to react, attack, defend and convince that person otherwise. What if, instead, we got quiet for a moment, checked in with our intuition, and asked a clarifying question? What common need or concern underlies their position? Why is this point so important to this person?

6. Seek to find the commonalities between their position and your position. This requires a flexibility of mind. Even world religions are over 80% the same stuff as each other. Why focus on the 20% that is different? Rather focus on the similarities and not the differences. Find something you can genuinely agree on. For example, one might use the phrase, “I know exactly what you mean”. It affirms the other’s position and does not dilute one’s own. Such a phrase makes safe space for the other person to open up more, and unpack the deeper reasons and experiences that have formed their position, which enriches the conversation.

7. Leave some space to consider and reflect on what the other person has said. This is hard to do when part of us is feeling challenged, feisty, and uncomfortable. It is a practice. Leave a moment of space, instead of crafting one’s response while the other is still speaking, which means we are only listening with half an ear. Receiving another’s point of view doesn’t mean we must abandon our own.

8. See the wrong in the right, and the right in the wrong. We often divide the world into two parts, the part we like, and the part we don’t. There are many other sides to every story besides our own. In what way are the other person’s assertions right? In what ways are my assertions wrong? It is liberating to not identify with what you seem to be. What if we suspended our point of view for even a day and embraced the opposite view for a day to see what it is like to walk a mile in that person’s shoes? This requires a flexibility of mind, a level of respect, and a recognition that we are all human beings with a beating heart, born of a mother, and destined to die. We all need food, water, medicine. We all appreciate conviviality and shared interests, and we have each suffered ordeals that we cannot know in another. What if, as an infant, you were switched at the hospital into this person’s family and raised that way? You could be talking to yourself! The Sufi teacher Pir Vilayat was fond of saying: “To become what I might be, I have to see myself in another myself, who shows me who I truly am.”

9. Embrace Discernment over Judgement. Discernment is the evolving ability to recognize ever more nuanced distinctions between two things that are very close to each other. Whereas Judgement is about making someone’s position “good, right and true” or “bad, wrong and evil” depending on how it relates to one's own position. A rule from the Knighthood of Purity (…google it... it’s profound and cool) states, “My conscientious self, judge not another by your own law.” No one likes to feel judged. It shuts down the conversation really fast. It is also unhelpful to use one’s position like a big stick to beat someone up who disagrees … tempting sometimes…but never ultimately useful. The Dalai Lama said, “The truth is always kind. If it is not kind, it is not the truth. It is cruelty”.

10. Make it personal in a good way. When a person acts in a certain way that we don’t like, it is not personal unless we choose to make it personal. There are two ways to make it personal; an unavailing way or a profitable way. The first way is to react poorly as if attacked… we argue defend, attack back, become agitated, blow a gasket…. not useful. The second way is to really hear a person’s stories because there is abundant information in them which is ours to witness. We are being shown something. That person could become our “Angel in Jackboots” teaching us a hard lesson about ourselves and/or about human nature that we can be grateful for, if we allow the lesson. In the Hindu tradition, there are stories about Krishna stealing butter as a metaphor for gleaning wisdom from everyone’s stories. The way of wisdom is to learn from everyone else, and I do mean EVERYONE, as grist for the mill of our own evolution.