In federations, some votes count more than others. Is the price worth paying?

Earth might as well be renamed-The Planet of Democracies. The constant uprisings in the Eastern World are asking for democracy only because their current systems are oppressive, yet who said that democracy can fix all of their problems? Federalism is becoming in vogue because of its association with democratic systems, but federalism can have its drawbacks. Federalism may call for representation, but the government is not guaranteed to listen. In countries like Nigeria and Iran, the government has made itself independent of the people, thereby increasing its autonomy and fostering corruption. Even if the government does live up to democracy and care what the people think, the SMD and PR electoral systems can too prohibit the 'one person, one vote' slogan. The single member district system commonly leads to the country having only two major parties, leaving those who do not fit within the prominent ideologies out of power, while proportional representation often results in slower legislation. What these 'uprising countries' fail to realize is that democracy is not about everyone saying what they want, but focusing more on compromise and negotiation among different groups. Many may applaud the courage that these 'uprising countries' have for standing up to their oppressive governments, but their immediate turn to violence shows that they do not truly grasp the concepts that make a democracy.

This article contains so many separate errors, it’s hard to know where to begin to correct it. In summary:

1. Countries do not “aspire to be democracies”. Countries don’t aspire to things. People do.

2. With the possible exception of Switzerland, most countries are not democracies, and the politicians who rule them do not aspire to them becoming democracies.

3. Under the system of (so-called) “representative” government (which this article confuses with democracy):

    a) there is no relationship between the preferences of citizens and the policies adopted by their rulers;

    b) if there is any relationship at all, it is between adopted policies and the preferences of people in the top decile of income (see, for example, The Economist’s Free Exchange article on this topic); and

    c) this is the case irrespective of the voting weights of citizens.

4. None of this has anything to do with the representation of states in a federal legislature. The representation of states in a federal legislature arises from the definition of “the People”: whether the federation is one polity comprising one People or several polities and several Peoples, and has absolutely nothing to do with it being democratic or non-democratic.

5. Political agents who aspire to centralise power within a federation (invariably under non-democratic government) assert that a federation comprising several Peoples is in fact a single polity comprising only one People . . . and do so in order to remove impediments to their own exercise of power.

6. Where Peoples have the democratic right to vote directly on the centralisation of power within their federations, they typically vote to oppose such changes!!

Democracy is a system of government in which a set of People (however defined) govern themselves. It may be shown that the only logically derivable means of doing this is to use an aggregation device which has itself been chosen by that People using a non-privileging aggregation device.

It may be readily observed that, with the possible exception of Switzerland, most federations are not - and have never been - democratic in this sense. Rather, they have systems of purely “representative” government - in which legislative and executive power is monopolised by politicians – which have never been approved using a non-privileging aggregation device. Changing the voting weights for a federal legislature would not change this.

Equality of representation of states in a federal legislature touches on a completely different issue: the definition of “the People”.

If one regards a federation as a single polity encompassing a single “People”, then for a “democratic federation” it would be necessary to constitute the federal legislature from constitutional options as follows:

a) constitutional options voted upon by members of the federation, with equal weighting for each voter irrespective of state;

b) constitutional options not pre-vetted by a privileged subset; and

c) the order in which constitutional options are eliminated not under the control of a privileged subset.

(The result of this process might or might not be a legislature elected with equally weighted votes.)

However, that assumes that one regards a federation as a single polity encompassing a single “People”.

If one regards the federation as comprising several “Peoples”, then equality of any kind at the federal level does not follow. It is possible for a number of polities to negotiate amongst themselves for the delegation of certain powers to a central government on whatever terms they may agree upon. The negotiated arrangement may include equally weighted voting for a central legislature. But it need not. Indeed, it need not include any elected offices at all in the central jurisdiction.

For example, when Britain joined the European Union, it did not follow that decisions within the European Union – either then or at any later date as it evolved federal characteristics – would need to be made by a legislature elected by voters with equally weighted votes irrespective of state.

When people talk woollily about federations being “undemocratic” because they have different voting weights for voters from different states, what they are actually saying is “This federation ought to be regarded as a single polity comprising a single People.”

Political agents who aspire to centralise power within a federation (invariably under non-democratic government) commonly assert that a federation comprising several Peoples is in fact a single polity comprising only one People. The realpolitik purpose of this claim is to streamline the central legislature to remove impediments to their own exercise of power under non-democratic ("representative") government.

Short of having some form of world government (comprising absolutely all people) to adjudicate such matters, there is no authoritative way to solve conflicting claims of what constitutes “a People”.

However as a matter of historical record, many federations - the United States, Switzerland, Australia – were negotiated by separate historical polities seeking to delegate limited powers to a federal government, subject to rules which included disproportionate voting powers amongst the constituents as a necessary and accepted condition to gain agreement.

Moreover, federations that have been negotiated in this way have such provisions solidly entrenched in their federal constitutions, typically with a requirement that they may not be amended without the consent of the state or states concerned. See, for example, the final clause of Article V of the US Constitution or the final paragraph of Section 128 of the Australian Constitution.

Finally, it may be noted that where Peoples have the democratic right to vote directly upon the centralisation of power in their federations, they typically vote to oppose such changes. To take two examples:

- of 44 constitutional referendums held in Australia since federation, 32 have attempted to increase the powers of the Federal Parliament (23), remove a limit on the powers of the Federal Parliament (1), limit the power of the Senate relative to the House of Representatives (5), or otherwise limit the powers of the states relative to the Commonwealth (3). Of 32 attempts to increase or streamline the power of the Commonwealth government, only two were successful – the social services referendum of 1946 and the aboriginal powers referendum of 1967 (whereas the success rate in 12 other ancillary referendums was 50%); and

- the European Constitution was voted down in democratic referendums in critical states (and faced imminent defeat in others). Political agents seeking to centralise power were forced to remove the democratic right of Peoples to vote upon the changes in order to achieve their objectives.

While I do think that more often than not federal systems of governance do indeed detract of the mythos of one-person-one-vote democracy, it is in some cases necessary.
In deeply divided societies such as India, or large sprawling states with geographic areas of individuality and micro-nationalism such as the U.S.A. a federal approach can serve as an informal method of consociationalism; it is at times the only practical solution.

In divided societies especially, I think that when the choice is either protracted violence or a federal/consociational approach, it may be necessary to forgoe the 'idealistic' version of democracy that is so often lauded.

It is impossible to comment on an article pertaining to the validity of modern democracy without mentioning the current unrest in N. Africa and the Middle East. I think that the article has infact been very astute pointing towards Libya and Egypt as potential candidates for some form of federal governance. Perhaps less so Egypt, as simple size is not necessarily enough to qualify for a federal approach in my humble opinion, but Libya certainly so. With its deeply ingrained tribal clans, and the real possibility of extremism taking root. I think that a federal arrangement (or some form thereoff) would serve to provide equal incentive to all tribal groupings to take part. That there is a reasonably widespread educated "middle-class" would, I think, serve to truly give power back to the people via a federal approach.

Corrected link: It may be shown that the only logically derivable means . . . .

I tend to agree with Stephen Morris in the sense that the only truly democratic country in the wolrd is Switzerland , because the constitution and history provides for the "referendum". That is the population in a gemeinde, canton or the country can vote on any subject and approve or disapprove any existing law or new voted law by congress. This simple feature put an important brake on the abuses of politicians and the usual lobbying groups.
It has to be properly studied , but present rule of universal sufragge simple means that "everybody has rights but nobody has obligations". After all the idea of voting rights to those paying taxes or owning property (traditioanl in the Italian middle ages) was not such a bad idea. The present democratic rules are prone to abuse by unscrupolous politicians and the media.
The democratic principles need a re thinking and re writing.