In any sensible society, any sign of excessive wealth displayed by a public servant, whether he be a Politician or simply an employee of a Government Department, should be questioned, and explanations demanded. A Manager of a small Department should not be entitled to drive a large and expensive limousine on the public ticket. In other times and places, such a person would have been dragged from his vehicle and hung from the nearest lamppost. A little extreme, perhaps, but certainly a way to make a point, and certainly better than burning down three schools to force the local municipality to build a road. The Press, which so loudly proclaims its right to intervene in the lives of private citizens ‘in the interests of the public’, is generally deathly silent when it comes to accusations against senior Politicians. They, in common with business and industry, fear retribution, perhaps justifiably. Yet the scourge of Apartheid could have been stopped in its tracks by an even mildly competent and honest Press corps (perhaps working in concert with Churches in the interpretation of the Bible). The 69% unemployment rate in the Eastern Cape Province in 1996 could have been cut to less than 10% if the Press had actively exposed the waste and incompetence of the Provincial Government, rather than the 72% that prevails in 2017. The disastrous education system could have been saved from 23 years of lying about the results of its ‘education’ of pupils if the Press had revealed the fallacies of the claims by the successive Ministers. The Iraq War could have been prevented, or stopped at an early stage if the Press had ventured to ask some pointed questions, not just related to the reasons for the war, the conduct of the war and the planning for the war, both of which have been proven to have been abysmally incompetent, but also by asking “Who will really benefit from this war?” To understand more in this regard, see “Follow the Money”, to come.
A good starting point would be to establish a special body which is only responsible to the electorate, and should therefore be elected directly by the electorate, rather than being appointed by the Government in power, with the mandate to investigate, expose and bring to trial all wrongdoing in Government. That body should be supported by an independent judiciary, and by the passing of a law which doubles the penalty for any crime by a person in a position of trust, particularly elected Politicians and Civil Servants, with a provision that any spurious legal manoeuvring by them in an attempt to evade the consequences of their wrongful conduct should incur additional penalties. To make this even more effective, no legal costs for defence should be borne by the Government or any Government body if the accused is found guilty of the crime charged. The investigating body should start its work with an investigation of the highest in the land, and continue to monitor every person who has been investigated, regardless of the outcome. The claim that this will interfere in their privacy may be rebuked by the fact that each Politician chose to become one, and so has consented to intensive public scrutiny of his personal affairs. This scrutiny should continue for at least several years after his departure from office.
Another start point would be the exposure of all Government contracts to public scrutiny. They are, after all, an expenditure of public money, taxpayer money. “All” means “all”, without exception. Many Government bodies would resist this, for better or worse reasons. The CIA would resist this strongly, but this system would have prevented the excesses of the CIA support of the Shah of Iran, which resulted in the Islamic Revolution and all the problems that came from this, as well as the Contra Arms deal, which resulted in a massive loss of respect for the US worldwide. Similar measures would have prevented the French Government support of the Hutus in Ruanda, leading to a genocide, and to the Apartheid Government’s support of Frelimo in Mozambique and Unita in Angola in order to promote the civil wars and so instability in the neighbouring countries. It might have prevented the enrichment of Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Muamar Gadhafi and all the numerous dictators who appear on the stage to rob the people they are elected to represent, and the impoverishment of many nations.
Finally, a good way to avoid the excesses of politicians would be to tie the taxes payable by citizens directly to the expenditure. Allow the citizens to decide whether they wish to pay their share of the cost of security guards for the politicians, the limousines for Civil Servants, the executive jet for the President, the splendid health care provisions voted by Politicians for themselves, and so on. Let these votes be published by an independent body, with the provision that no taxes be levied for more than three months after the voting period if the results have not been published. An effective way to do this would be to attach a list of the items of expenditure by Government, each item as a percentage of the tax paid by the taxpayer, along with the tax return, with checkboxes alongside each item showing that the taxpayer approves or disapproves of the item. This will very quickly demonstrate to the Politicians that they are being watched and judged.
Perhaps the major reason why democracy does not function as it should is the Party system, under which the Party bosses decide who should stand for election, and what their consciences should dictate. The system allows the bosses to dictate to the Branches who should be on the list for election, who should be elected President or Prime Minister, who should be a Cabinet Minister, and what the policies of the Government they control should be. In none of these does the average citizen play any role, and the election of a person to Parliament or Congress is largely a reward, in salary terms, for obedience to the Party line. In practical terms, most ‘democracies are really dictatorships, with the power reside in in the few Party bosses who call the shots. The real wishes and desires of the voters seldom play any meaningful role in how their elected representatives act or what they do. It is seldom that a representative chooses to vote according to his conscience – such an act would be tantamount to political suicide, unless it happens to coincide with the Party line. Even worse is the fact that, in a balanced democracy, the selection of people to become Ministers, even if it is done according to ability, is limited to those loyal members who have gained the chance to be elected by strict adherence to the rules set by the Party bosses, not, by any stretch of the imagination, as a result of their ability or intelligence, and the field of selection is reduced to the proportion of the public supporting that Party. It is almost unheard of for a highly-capable person from another Party being selected to hold a ministerial position, one in which his or her capabilities would be able to be exercised. In almost every case, the appointment of a person as Minister or Deputy Minister is made as a form of reward for service, in the past or the future, with little regard to the suitability of that person for the post. In South Africa, under President Zuma, the extent of this form of corruption is easily seen in the fact that there are nearly a hundred Ministers and Deputy Ministers, most of whom, if credible reports can be believed, have their hands deep in the cookie jar. One would be hard pressed to find even one amongst this horde who has demonstrated a real capability to do the job. If one were to manage a business in this way, any clear-thinking critic would recognise it as a formula for bankruptcy, yet, for some reason, it is the political way of doing things.
It is clear that the Party-political system was designed by politicians who have at heart their own best interests, regardless of their protestations that they ‘represent the people’. They do not. They represent themselves, almost to the exclusion of the people.
Perhaps the most meaningful changes that could be brought about to support democracy as a principle would be the following:
- Ban Parties. Ensure that the people select those who will represent them from amongst themselves, on the basis of their proven honesty, integrity and capability.
- Make it illegal for any grouping of persons to attempt to influence the votes of those representatives in Parliament or Congress by any form of coercion or reward.
- Elect the President or Prime Minister by direct vote of the electorate, from the numbers of those who were elected as representatives, with a requirement for such election being that the candidates present their qualifications and the reasons they consider themselves suitable in a standardised format, so that the voters are able to compare their qualities and their honesty easily.
- Ensure that the appointment of a Minister or Deputy Minister is made by a majority vote of the representatives after they have been cleared of any suspicion of dishonesty and have shown their credentials as ‘fit and proper persons’ for the job in the same way as a candidate for a senior banking position, with the investigation of these credentials being conducted by a person enjoying the confidence of at least 70% of the representatives.
- Allow a demand for a new election of a President or Prime Minister by at least 30% of the representatives, with those making the demand responsible to pay the costs should the incumbent be re-elected.
- In the event of a Court judgment involving dishonesty being given against a representative, a Minister or Deputy Minister or a President or Prime Minister, that person should be declared ineligible for the position and an election of a replacement within a month precipitated.
Other rules will be necessary, but the intention of every rule should be to ensure that the person selected to play a role in Government enjoys the trust and confidence of the electorate, considers himself to be responsible to the electorate and accountable to it and acts in accordance with that belief, and has the necessary qualifications in terms of integrity, trustworthiness, intelligence, skills and experience to be able to perform competently in the position of trust he or she will occupy.
Is this utopia, or is it what we all really want in our democracies?
No comments:
Post a Comment