The current flare up of election day sabotage in Nigeria reminds me of the doubts I hold concerning the implementation of democracy in many societies. It has to do with allegiances. Humans tend to group together, both as a matter of survival and being social beasts, and to retain these social attachments as a long term, semi-exclusive arrangement, which is to say that we may have a number of these relationships, but rarely more than one of any given type. For example, the sports fan with more than one allegiance to a football team is rare.
These categories are also hierarchical. A sports team allegiance could be considered to be at the bottom of the pile, as it’s a rare sports nut who’ll actually put their life on the line for their team: exceptions may be found, but they merely prove the rule that some humans have a really large standard deviation. But consider these categories, ranked hierarchically (Citizen A):
- Religion
- Country
- Tribe
- Family
Or, to drive the point home (Citizen B):
- Country
- Family
- Religion
- Tribe
And now apply them in the context of an election. Who does A vote for? Well, if he’s a Zoroastrian, he might vote for the Zoroastrian in the race, as a matter of course – not when all else is equal, but as the most important factor to consider. B, on the other hand, holding country as the most important allegiance, might evaluate all of the candidates and select the one exhibiting the best skills at governance (which is quite the topic in itself), or perhaps advocating policies B thinks best suited for the country, disregarding the religion or tribe of the candidates.
We can construct some tentative hierarchies. An American independent voter, such as myself:
- Family
- Country
- State, maybe
I fear I’m not very tribal, actually. Now, a party zealot:
- Political Party
- Country
I don’t point fingers at either party, actually – this is known as voting the party line, a term most of us know quite well. Here’s a party loyalist:
1. Political Party
1.1 Country
Here might be an Iraqi voter:
- Tribe
- Religion
- Party
- Country
This might also apply to many other voters in countries of dubious democratic nature. It seems to me (and I’m sure many political theorists are way ahead of this simple minded software engineer) that certain hierarchical examples are toxic to the democratic experiment, while others are conducive. I’m not a big fan of the party zealot, but at least I do not think they’re toxic; the party loyalist will actually listen to arguments and occasionally cross over. Being an independent myself (I voted for Jesse Ventura for MN governor, and I would have done so again if he’d run for re-election), I think the independent’s hierarchy is close to ideal – what is best for the country, in whatever terms seem most important, is the top priority. Religion doesn’t even enter into it for me, unless I feel the religious inclinations of the candidate may have an undue negative influence on the candidate’s actions.
Given those thoughts, I have to wonder at how accurate it is to designate a number of countries as having reached the gold standard of being democratic. Those countries in which most of the voters are of the profile, above, for an Iraqi voter, may be regarded with skepticism, because allegiances to tribe and religion are difficult to break once they’ve become set, and if the penalties for breaking those allegiances are severe, well, then the contest is not decided in the general election, but in the nominating contest for the one entity controlling more votes than the others – assuming it’s a winner take all format. This suggests that democracy will not flourish until the old hierarchies are sufficiently broken to permit citizens to put heterogeneous country above the demands of other institutions.
United States of America
This leads naturally to considering the origins of the United States. The colonists who eventually established the country were often outcasts: Pilgrims who felt, or were, oppressed; the economically disadvantaged who sought a new country to begin again; criminals whose punishment was exile and often indenturement; slaves, without a prayer of returning to their homes. These are not people with unbreakable allegiances to much else than their religion. And even that, over a generation or two of exposure to other modes of thought, proves not to be impervious. While the Amish and a few other groups persist, we’re hard put to find surviving members of other groups such as Shakers, Friends, Pilgrims; and the larger sects, while having trends for voting one way or another, are not normally known for a en masse voting habit.
But I think another factor also comes into play: the idea of justice, or fair play. The stricture that all are equal before the law is a reflection of the idea of fair play. Dogs and monkeys have this down cold; when we implement it, then we must admit the concept that we do not cheat at elections. Not that it doesn’t occur, but it is considered to be such a minor affair that it doesn’t swing elections any longer, although of course Richard Nixon might have grounds to disagree.
So I shudder every time I hear we’re “putting boots on the ground” to install democracy in some benighted country lacking same; our government “professionals” don’t really seem to have a clue as to the prerequisites of making a democracy work. Where are we going this time to fail, once again? Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti … who’s next to join our list of failures?
