Since democracy is a system of collective self-rule of political equals, it is a form of government in which distrust of people (public officials and even other voters) is always present. We have conflicting interests and different goals, and democracy threatens that others will overrule us. This is a situation of great conflict, and conflict warrants distrust.
Democracy tempers the risks of being overruled by limiting the scope of majority rule and by conducting conflict through an inclusive and open process of public deliberation. Democracies foster institutional trust when their institutional design has robust limits on power and when it effectively channels conflict and distrust into public deliberation.
In the last few years, there has been much conflict in New Zealand over matters such as the Three Waters proposal and especially the COVID-19 responses. These events revealed the weak ability of our society to channel conflict into the democratic processes of open and inclusive public deliberation. Likewise, they revealed the lack of effective limits on power provided by the institutional design of our democracy. For example, the executive dominates Parliament, urgency is overused, and the individual rights of citizens are easily discardable. The magnitude of these events and the subsequent revealed weaknesses in our system have shaken trust in our government and its leaders.
However, there are ways to improve trust in our democracy. We can start by limiting the use of urgency to matters that are truly urgent. This could be done by amending parliament’s standing orders to require a supermajority of MPs to agree to legislation being placed into urgency. It would also be wise to limit governmental power in other ways. Over the years, many suggestions for this have been proposed and discarded, such as returning to a bicameral system, increasing the number of MPs, or entrenching the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (to name a few). Such changes would be significant and would require a more thorough examination than can be provided here. The fact remains that our government needs more checks and balances. It is recommended, then, that we, as a nation, have an open and inclusive discussion about how this is best done.
Stephanie Worboys joined Maxim Institute in 2024. She holds a PhD in Public Policy from Victoria University of Wellington and a BA in Philosophy from Bethel University of St Paul, MN. This article was first published HERE
In the last few years, there has been much conflict in New Zealand over matters such as the Three Waters proposal and especially the COVID-19 responses. These events revealed the weak ability of our society to channel conflict into the democratic processes of open and inclusive public deliberation. Likewise, they revealed the lack of effective limits on power provided by the institutional design of our democracy. For example, the executive dominates Parliament, urgency is overused, and the individual rights of citizens are easily discardable. The magnitude of these events and the subsequent revealed weaknesses in our system have shaken trust in our government and its leaders.
However, there are ways to improve trust in our democracy. We can start by limiting the use of urgency to matters that are truly urgent. This could be done by amending parliament’s standing orders to require a supermajority of MPs to agree to legislation being placed into urgency. It would also be wise to limit governmental power in other ways. Over the years, many suggestions for this have been proposed and discarded, such as returning to a bicameral system, increasing the number of MPs, or entrenching the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (to name a few). Such changes would be significant and would require a more thorough examination than can be provided here. The fact remains that our government needs more checks and balances. It is recommended, then, that we, as a nation, have an open and inclusive discussion about how this is best done.
Stephanie Worboys joined Maxim Institute in 2024. She holds a PhD in Public Policy from Victoria University of Wellington and a BA in Philosophy from Bethel University of St Paul, MN. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
Absolute academic rubbish. This country is in trouble after a destructive brush with Marxism. This is not the time to discuss your favourite colour.
Those suggestions sound like strangling any progress a govt could make in 3 years. We'd have stagnated as a society a long time ago.
Stephanie is clearly an expert in....procrastination... talking in circles while reaching no worthwhile, practical conclusions...and annoyingly using the same words and phrases throughout her, thankfully, short article.
The perfect example of an expert academic, in fact. All talk, no action.
' increasing the number of MPs' - oh God save us.
CXH. Chch City Council increased Council numbers under the watchful eye of our last left wing mayor Dalziel. We now have total disunity holding we ratepayers to ransom.
It is commonly believed that a democracy is the ideal state structure, the justification for invading other countries and overthrowing their tyrannical governments is, we are told, to spread democracy throughout the world. But, if you look at the reality of life in those lands where democracy has been delivered, you find little difference between the old and new regimes, except that the new ones are often worse.
In colonial America, Samuel Adams, a prominent leader of the movement for independence, expressed the common view of his colleagues when he said: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Those who drafted the American Constitution believed that a democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government and so, they created what they called a republic. This is why the word democracy does not appear in the Constitution.
In England, Lord Acton wrote: “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
In Scotland, a history professor at the University of Edinburgh, Alexander Tyler, wrote: A democracy is always temporary in nature – it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy – usually followed by a dictatorship.
The last decade especially, has shown those with eyes to see the ‘dark side’ of this state structure called western democracy and where it is leading us.
So rather than trying to improve this failing state structure, it would be better to adopt our very own written constitution and become a Republic, a state structure that supports individualism over collectivism.
Very well stated Hazel. That commentary needs to be shared far and wide.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.