2014 and All That

Posted by WiredSisters on September 9th, 2014 filed in Democracy, History, Uncategorized

1066 and All That is a book on English history by WC Sellar and RJ Yeatman. I mention it here because, among other historical facts it relates is one about the relationship between England and Ireland in the 19th century. As best I can recall, the authors tell us, the English set up a system for governing Ireland, which provided that the Irish were to have a parliament, but the English were to pass all the laws in it.

We Americans have no problem spotting the flaw in this setup. We have, in fact, worked fairly hard on making electoral politics transparent and responsive to the will of the people, between the 1940s and the 1980s or thereabout. The 1940s saw the courts ruling to abolish the “white primary”—the Southern electoral system in which the solidly Democratic South made its real selection of candidates during the Democratic primary, in which only whites were allowed to vote, and then grudgingly allowed multiracial voting in the general election, which could not possibly elect anyone but the winner of the Democratic primary. The argument of the party was that it was a private organization, like the Moose or the Elks, and therefore the courts could not tell it whom to allow to vote in its primary, much less whom to choose as its candidate. The courts, the party argued, could rule only on issues in the general election.. The courts, and most Americans in the rest of the country, had no trouble seeing through that argument.

The unfortunate events of the 1968 Democratic convention and the election following it called the attention of the American public to the method by which the national Democratic Party chose its candidates. The party’s presidential candidate that year had not won a single state primary. He was chosen by a process of steamrolling by party bosses that Chicagoans still remember. So in 1972, the Democratic Party changed its rules (and the Republicans followed suit over the next few years, though with less controversy and fireworks) to provide that every state had to have a primary, and that the primary elections would in fact determine the choice of national candidates. So far, so good.

Doesn’t all this progress mean we get to pat ourselves on the back about how much more democratic (note the small “d”) we are than, say, China, or Iran?

Not so fast.

Okay,yes, the citizens of Hong Kong are protesting, at this very moment, because the national government in Beijing insists that, while the Hong Kong locals can elect their leaders, Beijing gets to choose the candidates in that election. According to CNN, “The majority of Hong Kong citizens, namely, the 5 million qualified voters of the selection of chief executive in 2017, will be able to cast their votes to select the chief executive,” said Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.

“Speaking at an event Monday to explain the NPC’s decision, he added: “This is the first opportunity — a very good opportunity — for Hong Kong to have one man, one vote — universal suffrage. This is something we should all feel proud of.”

“But that’s not how Hong Kong’s pro-democracy Occupy Central movement sees it. The group has vocally pushed for elections in which any candidate can run for chief executive. For weeks, protesters have taken to the streets. In a statement on its website, the group slammed Beijing’s decision as a move that stifles democracy and blocks people with different political views from running for office.
“Genuine universal suffrage includes both the rights to elect and to be elected,” the statement said. “The decision of the NPC Standing Committee has deprived people with different political views of the right to run for election and be elected by imposing unreasonable restrictions, thereby perpetuating ‘handpicked politics.'” Specifically, China’s powerful National People’s Congress Standing Committee voted Sunday to change the way Hong Kong picks its chief executive, ruling that only candidates approved by a nominating committee will be allowed to run.
“A top Chinese official made clear the candidates all must “love the country and love Hong Kong.”

And then there’s Iran. According to Wikipedia, “The politics of Iran take place in a framework of Presidential Democracy and theocracy in a format of Syncretic politics that is guided by an Islamist ideology. The December 1979 constitution, and its 1989 amendment, define the political, economic, and social order of the Islamic Republic of Iran, declaring that Shi’a Islam of the Twelver school of thought is Iran’s official religion.

“Iran has an elected president, parliament (or Majlis), and an “Assembly of Experts” (which elects the Supreme Leader), and local councils. According to the constitution all candidates running for these positions must be vetted by the Guardian Council (with the exception of those running for “Assembly of Experts”) before being elected.

“In addition there are representative elected or appointed organizations (usually under Supreme Leader’s control) trying to “protect the state’s Islamic character”.[1]”

Isn’t it great to be an American? Or at least a New Yorker? Lawrence Lessig, in Tumblr, remarks on Governor Cuomo’s refusal to debate the amazingly named (apparently it’s her real name, too) Zephyr Teachout because she hasn’t raised enough money to be allowed into the election. “It’s a fun way to be angry about the outrage of the governor refusing to debate. But I don’t think this is really about sexism. It’s about money-ism: Zephyr is not entitled to debate the governor not because she’s a woman, but because she’s a woman without money. (Of course that’s not unrelated.) And in this democracy, not to have money is not to be qualified.

“This is the same reality Buddy Roemer confronted in 2012. Roemer was the most qualified Republican running for president. He had been a governor, he had served three terms in the House of Representatives, and he had run a successful community bank — kind of a Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain wrapped in one. But Roemer had made money the issue in his campaign, refusing to accept contributions of greater than $100, and refusing PAC money. He was therefore not qualified to even debate the other candidates. Literally. At first, he was told he had to have 1 percent national name recognition to be allowed to debate. When he got that, he was told he needed 2 percent. When he got that, he was told he had to have raised $500k in the prior six weeks. Not to have money means not to be qualified.”

Other observers have told us there are actually two primaries in most election cycles: the money primary and the vote primary. A candidate who doesn’t win the money primary might as well not bother with the vote primary.

I’m not seriously suggesting we all move to Iran. Or even Hong Kong. But wouldn’t it be nice to have a democracy of our own?

Red Emma