British-origin democratic duopoly system is in universal decline and will degrade and decay out of existence

[myata]

The majority, first-by-the post parliamentary system was established in the 17th-18th centuries and may have been the only form of democracy possible at the time given the level of education and involvement of average, regular citizens. By now it's clear that it has run the course of its relevance and usability in the modern world of democracy.

All remaining examples of its use in the modern world are in some kind of a trouble. In the third, semi-democracy world it is preferred to keep the power concentrated in the hands of rulers or elites due to obscurity and susceptibility to corruption. Of the three remaining instances in the first world, two: the U.S. and Canada are in some form of systemic crisis (U.S: extreme partisanship, Canada: detachment and disengagement of the population), while the United Kingdom, the place of its origin and long tradition can be considered a special and unique case, not without its problems as either.

A hallmark of the system is that it isolates the access and control over the power from regular citizens to the maximum or extreme (U.S, Canada) extent. The role of the citizens, forget the great declarations and anthems, is limited only to voicing their opinion with no effect on the power decisions and participating in the democracy ritual to chose formal head from the selection reduced to the absolute minimum.

It fosters partisanship, all the way to extreme, unproductive levels and shifts and confuses the priorities of the politics. The main objective of the duopoly is not competent, responsible and effective governance but gaining access to the power and holding it as long as possible. A meaningful, honest and responsible conversation about the state and priorities of the society is hardly possible in this environment.

There's nothing wrong with political views and policies being focused and promoted by involved groups, political entities, parties and movements. What is ineffective and counterproductive is superficially reducing the meaningful choice the citizens can exercise to the absolute minimum. In the modern world it makes no, zero sense. Instead of competing with the best, politicians only have to beat their duopoly alter-ego and more often than not, not by superior vision and plan but by trying to put down and diminish them. And now, even objectivity and reality itself don't seem to matter.

This erodes and rots both the quality of politics and involvement and trust of the citizens. The decline and eventual demise of democracy, if nothing changes, will follow inevitably. There's nothing prophetic about this conclusion: only logic and factual reality.

Edited September 10, 2024 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

Okay but the flaws you mentioned have been there since the beginning. So why are we only seeing dissent over democracy itself now? 

Got more to do with a new media form that is much more democratic than The press or The radio or TV tower. 

Technology will prevail, and as with the printing press The new landscape for political interaction will be reset.

Both the left and right will be satisfied. At least until the next thing comes along.

[myata]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Okay but the flaws you mentioned have been there since the beginning. So why are we only seeing dissent over democracy itself now? 

Because of the time! It's different, it has changed and moved on. People's lives today are nothing like they were in the 17th century but the political system is. Isn't it a paradox or what?

With universal education in the first world, there's no point in isolating citizens from important decisions and choices and limiting their choices superficially. It creates polarization, resentment and disengagement. And a genuine democracy cannot keep going without genuine involvement of citizens. Not like there are no other reasons, but do they need such help from the formal arrangement of political system?

And of course on the more general level, no system is perfect and nothing lasts forever, obvious truisms. Any entity, system, organism that doesn't know, forgot, lazy and bored etc to change and adapt itself to the reality of time will go extinct. No we can't beat the laws of nature, ourselves though any time and again.

[herbie]

When I was a kid I would hear adults laugh how Italy had 47 govts since the war because of all those coalitions etc.
Ten years after graduating Italy surpassed Canada's GDP.

Going to the airport to meet distant relatives emigrating from Italy was no more. They were all busy working building and selling Maseratis to us and sending our own wheat back as funny pastas people couldn't pronounce.
We've also had many examples of cooperative govts here, none of which were horrible except to Conservatives who hated liberal ones and ended up gutted by their own cooperative allies.

[myata]

British system was created for completely different times and in them. There's no point in stretching it till at all possible, it's counterproductive, inefficient, and in the end, carries serious risks. If educated people are kept for little children, they would either disconnect from, or begin resenting the political system. And without active and involved citizens, democracy cannot endure. With all its problems, proportional system is the standard of the day of a modern democratic system. In the 21st century democracy, citizens have the right for a full, unrestricted choice, and for effective control over their governments.

[TreeBeard]

Britain’s House of Lords still has members of the Church of England.  We still have unelected appointees with real power to stop or change legislation called the Senate.   There are several anachronistic flaws in our political system that still need to be worked through. 
 

I agree that first-past-the-post is one of them as well.   And should be the first one to fall.  Other parliamentary systems based on the UK model have done it to great effect.  

On 9/10/2024 at 5:05 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Okay but the flaws you mentioned have been there since the beginning. So why are we only seeing dissent over democracy itself now? 

Society progresses.  To do otherwise is to stagnate and die. 

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

Society progresses.  To do otherwise is to stagnate and die. 

Yes, but how do we change the system...

[slady61]

On 9/10/2024 at 6:59 AM, myata said:

The majority, first-by-the post parliamentary system was established in the 17th-18th centuries and may have been the only form of democracy possible at the time given the level of education and involvement of average, regular citizens. By now it's clear that it has run the course of its relevance and usability in the modern world of democracy.

All remaining examples of its use in the modern world are in some kind of a trouble. In the third, semi-democracy world it is preferred to keep the power concentrated in the hands of rulers or elites due to obscurity and susceptibility to corruption. Of the three remaining instances in the first world, two: the U.S. and Canada are in some form of systemic crisis (U.S: extreme partisanship, Canada: detachment and disengagement of the population), while the United Kingdom, the place of its origin and long tradition can be considered a special and unique case, not without its problems as either.

A hallmark of the system is that it isolates the access and control over the power from regular citizens to the maximum or extreme (U.S, Canada) extent. The role of the citizens, forget the great declarations and anthems, is limited only to voicing their opinion with no effect on the power decisions and participating in the democracy ritual to chose formal head from the selection reduced to the absolute minimum.

It fosters partisanship, all the way to extreme, unproductive levels and shifts and confuses the priorities of the politics. The main objective of the duopoly is not competent, responsible and effective governance but gaining access to the power and holding it as long as possible. A meaningful, honest and responsible conversation about the state and priorities of the society is hardly possible in this environment.

There's nothing wrong with political views and policies being focused and promoted by involved groups, political entities, parties and movements. What is ineffective and counterproductive is superficially reducing the meaningful choice the citizens can exercise to the absolute minimum. In the modern world it makes no, zero sense. Instead of competing with the best, politicians only have to beat their duopoly alter-ego and more often than not, not by superior vision and plan but by trying to put down and diminish them. And now, even objectivity and reality itself don't seem to matter.

This erodes and rots both the quality of politics and involvement and trust of the citizens. The decline and eventual demise of democracy, if nothing changes, will follow inevitably. There's nothing prophetic about this conclusion: only logic and factual reality.

You made some good points as to possible downsides to the practice of the democratic duopoly system in the current age of the world. Still it appears many of today’s democracies are experiencing the problems you highlighted. Perhaps it is high time to question and change the views on how to use democracy as an effective tool given the contemporary societies.

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, but how do we change the system...

We elect governments who will change the law.  We thought we had one in the Liberals, but they lied.  

[myata]

Yes this is a serious, possibly fundamental and critical problem. A long time back we, in the general sense of the people, the society approved the establishment of a political system that is virtually immutable and has no incentives to modify and adapt itself. It will become a serious obstacle to any essential and meaningful change because their incentives in the current system are not aligned with, and can run contrary to those of the society.

[Michael Hardner]

18 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

We elect governments who will change the law.  We thought we had one in the Liberals, but they lied.  

Restructuring the public sphere is, ironically, something that is above the heads of most of the public...

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Restructuring the public sphere is, ironically, something that is above the heads of most of the public...

Agreed.  I am leaning more and more towards at least a partial technocracy.  I think the Senate, if it’s appointed, should be appointed based on expertise, and not a lifetime appointment.  
 

Imagine a senate that is made up of medical professionals, bio-ethicists, constitutional scholars, etc. being asked to give “sober 2nd thought” to legislation and issues based on their expertise.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

 
 

Imagine a senate that is made up of medical professionals, bio-ethicists, constitutional scholars, etc. being asked to give “sober 2nd thought” to legislation and issues based on their expertise.  

I think that you're on to something if you mean thought leaders guiding the public conversation.

[eyeball]

British-origin democratic duopoly system is in universal decline and will degrade and decay out of existence

Left to its own devices it'll still take centuries to decay out of existence never mind change.

[SpankyMcFarland]

What many FPTP systems are seeing is wildly unrepresentative elections like we had in 1993 where a regional party gets far more seats than a national party with a larger vote share. But that’s a manageable problem. Unstable government is a much bigger issue and PR would only make that worse, I’m afraid, unless we get used to idea of (trigger warning, big breaths) coalitions in this country. There, I said it. That is, formal coalitions with every coalition partner at the table in Cabinet fully committed to a program of government, not this namby-pamby supply and confidence malarkey. Otherwise we are going to face many more minority governments clinging to power for a few years. 

[eyeball]

On 9/16/2024 at 11:33 AM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Otherwise we are going to face many more minority governments clinging to power for a few years. 

Oh well, it'll be like the old safety meeting joke, if nothing moves nobody gets hurt.

[myata]

On 9/16/2024 at 2:33 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Unstable government is a much bigger issue and PR would only make that worse, I’m afraid, unless we get used to idea of (trigger warning, big breaths) coalitions in this country.

What about absolute, total absence of accountability? Wouldn't that be some problem, in a democracy?

On 9/16/2024 at 2:33 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

unless we get used to idea of (trigger warning, big breaths) coalitions in this country.

Coalitions, compromises is a normal and necessary part of sane and adult politics in modern societies. Where are examples of monolith societies where a half of population really and genuinely supports one party? None. Doesn't exist. FPTP of course would create only distorted, tortured pseudo coalitions, because "representation" (should we read it literally in this time and century or only symbolically like in 1700 something?) doesn't represent anything like the real and factual political spectrum of the society.

[eyeball]

On 10/6/2024 at 5:37 AM, myata said:

What about absolute, total absence of accountability? Wouldn't that be some problem, in a democracy?

The absence of accountability is a problem in any o-cracy.

The only remedy is transparency.

On 10/6/2024 at 5:37 AM, myata said:

"representation" (should we read it literally in this time and century or only symbolically like in 1700 something?) doesn't represent anything like the real and factual political spectrum of the society.

The factual spectrum in the 1700's was pretty simple, those with power and wealth and those without. Today's political spectrum is barely more nuanced where most representatives pick a side and represent it to us as much or more than the other way around.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2024 by eyeball

[herbie]

On 9/11/2024 at 2:52 PM, TreeBeard said:

We elect governments who will change the law.  We thought we had one in the Liberals, but they lied.

Oh FFS there was no real public demand to push for it. Give up with the "lied" interpretation.
I'm beginning to be convinced most people want a strongman dictator so they can either comply or complain and not be bothered by having to vote and choose.

Edited October 8, 2024 by herbie

[myata]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Today's political spectrum is barely more nuanced where most representatives pick a side and represent it to us as much or more than the other way around.

This is a gross oversimplification. In the 17th century, aristocracy and elites that run democracy were quite homogeneous and could agree on some rules and traditions even if not defined formally. Now any number of populists realized that the rules are either weak or non-existent, there are no safety checks and by subverting formal structures of a default party they can be propelled right to the top of the political stage, instead of earning their way there in an open competition. It's a crude and inadequate instrument for the societies in this century. Can be dangerous too.

1 minute ago, herbie said:

I'm beginning to be convinced most people want a strongman dictator so they can either comply or complain and not be bothered by having to vote and choose.

Well that would be Rome in something like 400 BC. Looks like in two millennia plus we haven't learned much, have we?

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, myata said:

In the 17th century, aristocracy and elites that run democracy were quite homogeneous and could agree on some rules and traditions even if not defined formally.

I'm pretty sure the egalitarian leanings of aristocrats and elites were towards one another more than towards the small number of assemblies that represented ordinary common people in the 17th century.

I note you never touched on my comments on transparency or accountability. These still appear to be scarce commodities in the present. In the past people had little more than the belief or vain hope that God was keeping an eye on their betters and that his judgement would somehow prevent the abuse of power.  It's why they still swear up and down, many on a bible, to be right and honourable today.

4 hours ago, myata said:

Now any number of populists realized that the rules are either weak or non-existent, there are no safety checks and by subverting formal structures of a default party they can be propelled right to the top of the political stage, instead of earning their way there in an open competition.

Are you referring to things like Harris replacing Biden or BC Liberals converting to Conservatives? There are no rules for happenstance...shit happens.

What's missing these days assuming it was ever really there, is a governable electorate. Millions of Canadians willing to jump 10 feet in the air over a misplaced pronoun or scientific fact make it all to easy for populists to reign supreme without merit.

[myata]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I note you never touched on my comments on transparency or accountability. These still appear to be scarce commodities in the present. In the past people had little more than the belief or vain hope that God was keeping an eye on their betters and that his judgement would somehow prevent the abuse of power.

In the current system, these notions are purely speculative and abstract. The state of any organism, including political ones is determined by the reality of its existence, not some dusty paperwork. Where accountability is de facto non-existent; where in their own words, they have to face it once in some many years as some ritual; no force in the world can force political entities to be transparent and accountable. Words and wishful thinking will change nothing here. For the system to change its ways one has to change the basis of its existence, its environment. Politicians have to know that they are accountable every day and for every act, and this is a key part of their job description, not some old-time mantra.

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, myata said:

...no force in the world can force political entities to be transparent and accountable.

Politicians have to know that they are accountable every day and for every act...

How?

[myata]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

How?

By making them accountable. By not giving them unlimited carte-blanche for power. By limiting their power. We have do that, or live with the status quo for as long as it lasts.

Proportional representation is one way of advancing to that end. No: you don't have the monopoly on power for so many years. Yes, you have to keep the trust and keep delivering the results or you may and probably will loose it. Imagine people spending their entire careers in this kind of environment as opposed to: we won? Can do what we like. No? Just give it another term or at worst, two and we can do what we like.

What "pharmacare"? Where, "dental coverage"? And the list goes on forever. And sure, citizens committee will determine the pay, fair and reasonable. It's done elsewhere in way more advanced democracies, what could be wrong with it?

[eyeball]

Just now, myata said:

By making them accountable.

I guess your comment about there being nothing on Earth that can force this is still hanging out there. I suppose proportional government might work but it looks like it also doesn't in many countries. 

I'm more a fan of trying an assembly of citizen's randomly chosen like jurists that are vetted for their worthiness and effectiveness. We need representatives that come to the job without a bag full of promises to the public they can't keep and committments to private interests they have no business keeping.