Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
I’ve tried to visualise in a diagram (below) various forms of government and their (likely) effect on individual liberty.
[Click for larger image. Source PPT]
To the extreme left and right are ideal models. Both can work IF certain conditions are met.
1) A constitutional dictator (jinn) who defends the country’s constitution and does not dabble in any unnecessary thing is likely to be the best for defence of life and liberty. However, this is an unlikely outcome, since dictators who will comply with the law simply don’t exist.
2) On the other extreme (right) is direct democracy in which every public decision is made directly by all the people sitting at a single table and deciding everything. Theoretically this sounds enticing (everyone gets an equal voice). However, it is, in practical terms, the worst of all form of government since it will lead to confusion, mob rule, flip-flopping on policy positions, significant focus on redistribution, and potentially the end of all liberty as the country is weakened and annexed by its enemies.
The real choices available are therefore much narrower. We need a strong ruler who defends our liberty, closes debates as quickly as possible, is perceived to be legitimate, and can be thrown out quickly if he turns into a tyrant.
Systems that can do this job competently are forms either of the Westminster or Presidential systems of government.
The Presidential deliberately creates a dictator (bound by the Constitution): the President. In principle, this system should be superior to the FPTP system. And it has worked quite well in the USA. However, there are risks under this system of Presidents who over-reach their power and are not accountable to anyone for four years.
The Westminster FPTP system allows for greater accountability since the Parliament can vote out the government midway through its term (through a vote of no confidence – and provided defections are allowed: I strongly support the freedom of representatives to defect). True, Indira Gandhi short-circuited the parliament and became a dictator. But in general, FPTP systems can change governments more quickly than in any other system (I do advocate reducing the term of India’s governments from five to three, or at least four, years).
It could be argued that PR allows even quicker change in government. Most PR governments are chronically unstable. But an excess of change is a weakness, the tyranny of democracy – which derives from Arrow’s impossibility theorem. And the practicality of electing a PR government – which can take days, even months – makes the change even slower.
We need the right balance between stability, strength, and voice. The FPTP Westminster system comes close to the optimum. It has some properties of constitutional dictatorship but also accountability and capacity to incorporate popular beliefs into public policy (I believe the Upper House in India needs to be reviewed from first principles. We may not really need an Upper House once all things are considered.)
If India ever gets tired of FPTP, it should try the presidential system, not PR. Any form of government that India uses must strengthen its unity, not support divisive forces.
Having said that, I seen no reason to abandon FPTP. Instead, there are simple ways to improve its functioning to give us governments that can better defend our liberty.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- The tyranny of democracy – why utilitarianism is wrong and the USA Bill of Rights is right
- The tyranny of democracy: Massive debts for future generations
- Call to lawmakers in India to protect liberty. This is getting urgent.
- Why do we care to subject ourselves to democracy (majority rule)?
- Democracy is not an ultimate value. It is a means for securing justice, not an end in itself.
- So much for “experts”: killed the birds they wanted to protect
- The entire Indian Army must come out to protect ANYONE who wishes to hoist the flag at Lal Chowk
- The blogsphere (citizensphere) vs. tyranny everywhere
- Big business, the enemy of liberty. None after JRD Tata has supported liberty in India.
- India’s democracy muddles along
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
The tyranny of democracy, and how we can protect liberty http://t.co/04WFIzBi
the Presidential system (atleast the US one) uses direct elections to select the EXECUTIVE head. Even in US, there is a debate on whether the electoral system to elect the LEGISLATURE should be changed from FPTP to PR.
So, to my mind, the Presidential vs. Westminster debate primarily concerns the executive branch and is separate from the FPTP vs. PR debate which concerns the legislature.
Dear Shailesh
The legislature should be tightly constrained and not have any capacity to undermine liberty. If that’s accepted, then its role is really very small. Laws are merely a derivative of the Constitution.
When I talk about government I mean the executive. That’s what we normally mean in the classical liberal sense when we talk about the role of government. While important, laws are merely details.
Re: the legislature Hayek proposed an outstanding model that needs to be explored. Please see http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/07/hayeks-1973-wincott-memorial-lecture/
s
The tyranny of democracy, and how we can protect liberty http://t.co/SV0Vp6g0 #philosophy #publicpolicy
I’ll read Hayek’s paper but you seem to miss my point. Anyways, let me make it clear – 100% agree that legislature should be tightly constrained by the Constitution to protect individual liberty. The main role of legislature, executive, judiciary and democracy are to honor the constitutional guarantees.
There is, however, nothing to show that FPTP elected legislatures do better than PR ones in protecting liberty. Infact, the Indian experience shows how a FPTP elected majoritarian govt can easily dilute / negate the Constitution.
To my mind: A PR electoral system would have never given Nehru or Indira or anyone the dominance required to make a mockery of the Constitution. PR’s superiority over the FPTP system should be relatively obvious atleast to the liberals and free market guys. FPTP system erects high barriers to entry in politics.
Further, irrespective of how India’s legislature is elected (using PR or FPTP), it can still appoint its executive using either the current system (westminster style) or using the Presidential system (US style – better separation of executive and legislature) or any combination that picks the best of these 2 imperfect systems. I haven’t applied my mind on this issue.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RANT:
I wonder why, of all people, YOU don’t understand this basic issue: You know what India needs. You are capable. You are willing to do all it takes. YET, you haven’t made ANY difference to India. Why?
Its because FPTP requires that you either compromise and be part of the Top 2 parties OR be a pressure group with all its limitations OR do what FTI is doing to break the Cong-BJP duopoly over this industry (politics).
EVEN IF fti is eventually successful, your and FTIs efforts and failures should atleast tell you that the entry barriers are unreasonably high. Which other industry has such massive entry barriers that you would justify? Which other trade or profession requires you to know everything, have all qualities, assemble 1500 capable and willing leaders who broadly agree with you on such complex issues, raise so much money, etc, BEFORE you can open your shop?
You first create/justify entry barriers (FPTP) and then fight for govt. subsidy to lower those barriers (State funding of elections). Isn’t this exactly what socialists do Sanjeev?
I am NOT a fti member…so, you may ignore/discount all I say…but i am frankly depressed by the inability of you and me to agree on such straightforward but important issues…how are we ever going to convince the nation on anything? I may be TOTALLY WRONG but having listened to you for so long, I think you have a closed mind. Unfortunately, I keep coming here because its so hard to find people keen and capable of helping India. Again, you may disagree but the FPTP system has, over a period of time, made it rational for people to stay away from politics. That is why despite your noble intentions you have chosen, as a rational person, to live outside India and will likely retire there.
The grave danger of PR system is that decision making will become extremely costly and will stall.
@Vishal FPTP has done a lot of damage by letting Nehru, Indira and others take swift decisions. ‘Activity is not progress’. Our governments have done so much but mostly in the wrong direction.
To the extent it slows decisions, PR is good since the default of ‘no movement’ is better than recklessly moving in some direction.
Areas requiring quick decisions (national defence, internal security, etc.) are/can be anyways delegated to the executive. In rare urgent cases requiring legislative action, an ordinance can be issued (atleast when the parliament is not in session).
a lot of inefficiency in India is due to slow government (bureaucracy, minsters, etc.)….thats what we (should) care about the most.
What if we enacted zero new legislation since independence but the government was capable and honest? Arguably, we would have been much better off.
and by the way, the fastest decision makers are dictators!
Speed of decision making isn’t a key criteria for good legislature. That said, PR is MUCH better at enforcing accountability thru competition. So, the bigger parties have to act more responsibly to retain vote-share. That should eliminate/reduce unnecessary blocks.
Shailesh
Your arguments are incorrect since your assumptions are incorrect. It is PR that tends – universally – across the world – towards socialist confusion. There are robust data to prove it.
In the case of India ALL parties were socialist and ARE socialist. FPTP can’t change what people think.
However, in the case of Narsamiha Rao, FPTP gave him the power to implement change RAPIDLY in 1991. Under PR India would STILL have been 100 per cent socialist.
But pl. wait. I will rebut all your arguments – CONCLUSIVELY – in the mini-book I’m preparing.
s
And UK would have been a total basket case today without the CONCLUSIVE actions to overturn socialism that Thatcher undertook.
FPTP also leads to socialist tendencies, but PR’s tendencies towards socialism are overwhelming.
And before I forget, when I say that ALL parties even today are socialist, I also imply the party being visualised by your idol Arvind Kejriwal. I’ve had extensive conversations over the phone by now with two key members of Team Anna, and from everything I gather, he is entirely confused and has uncritically absorbed India’s socialist model in its entirity.
Despite my efforts (and I’m putting in a good amount of time into this job) to influence Arvind, I don’t expect any freedom party to be started in India soon. Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev have a violent gut reaction to the idea of FDI in retail, and such basic liberties.
Therefore, PR or FPTP you’ll STILL get socialist policies in India.
If your interest is in freedom, then you’ll help build a FREEDOM based party, not worry about FPTP/PR. But let’s leave this here. I’m (when time is available) working on a comprehensive rebuttal of PR, since this topic comes up every once in a while and distracts me from useful work. I will publish this mini-book as a draft (on the internet) which I can cite to all those who raise this issue in the future.
Your critique of that mini-book will help me refine it so no further debate is necessary (ever!) in my life. But let me finish that mini-book, first.
s
ok, i’ll leave this here as u suggest and will continue to wait/hope for the meaningful debate you kindly agreed to….not just an opportunity to critique your PR bashing book. Hope you won’t go back on that.
I hold no brief for Arvind (atleast no longer since i am disappointed by his strategy, leadership skills and especially by the fact that he has let ‘yes men’ surround him). I still vouch for his integrity, his idea of decentralization, an independent investigating agency agst corruption, indefinite fast as a means of democratic protest, IAC’s Hisar campaign and most other actions of 2011.
“Despite my efforts (and I’m putting in a good amount of time into this job) to influence Arvind, I don’t expect any freedom party to be started in India soon.” – agree but blame FPTP…not Arvind!
Shailesh – Getting people to agree, even when it looks like there should not be differences is a mammoth task. Please attend meeting where every one has equal say and there is no hierarchy. Getting agreement on simple things becomes a nightmare. People keep finding ways to disagree.
Vishal
Shailesh
I don’t blame Arvind for being a socialist. He has been through a shoddy educational system (IIT may teach technology but it doesn’t reduce socialist indoctrination) and been in the company of a rabble of socialists for many years. He has not met nor come across people like me, and when I offer to speak to him, he doesn’t yet get the point that I might have something of value to suggest.
So it is India’s culture of socialism that has led to the mess in India. It is absurd (in the extreme!) to attribute it to FPTP. Universally, there is a tendency for PR governments to be far more socialist than FPTP. That’s the nature of compromise expected. Basic economic theory and intuition will prove it.
But time to move on. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to change your mind. Debate is only possible when reason can work.
S
Sanjeev:
I think:
1) Democracy, by definition, has some socialist tendencies (PR may have it more than FPTP – i don’t know…so, i don’t disagree).
2) I also agree that, immediately after independence, India and/or it’s key leaders had socialist tendencies. So, ok to blame that.
3) However, FPTP, by discouraging competition (high entry barriers), tends to perpetuate the dominant culture (socialist or liberal). This is one of the likely reasons for India being more socialist now than 65 yrs ago. (A good part of the freedom India has now is because of the 1991 liberalization – my understanding is it was more forced (by IMF) and less voluntary)
4) PR, by allowing more competition, gives minority ideas a better/fair chance to reverse the existing culture.
In short, which point do you disagree with?
@Vishal –
Point taken. PR slows legislative action!
Do you disagree with these further points:
- You can somewhat diminish the inherent tendency to disagree by giving people incentives to agree.
- In a Republic, where Constitution guarantees individual liberty, LEGISLATIVE action and the speed of it is NOT crucial
- Swift EXECUTIVE action is important and there are ways to ensure that both in PR and FPTP systems (Direct election of executive head is one of the ways. Even in our current Westminster system, parliamentary reforms can give a strong executive. I will elaborate if this is of interest)
Dear Vishal and Sanjeev:
pls agree or disagree with above claims made by me irrespective of whether these claims support PR or FPTP.
Also, I appreciate if you can answer these questions to the point. I realize its difficult to answer someone whom you don’t believe in. But, pls for the sake of clarifying this issue.
Shailesh
Due to time limitations I’ll just deal with this: “A good part of the freedom India has now is because of the 1991 liberalization – my understanding is it was more forced (by IMF) and less voluntary”.
Everything is voluntary at such a level. Nations are sovereign. In Greece, if you recall, no amount of pressure, IMF or otherwise, could make the government sign any order.
Having a clear majority in parliament allowed N.Rao to implement the reforms. Only he and his cabinet needed to agree. Not a rigmarole of splintered PR groups/parties. Only a government with clear mandate has a hope of implementing reforms. All other governments will inevitably tip into welfare state/ Keynesianism/ socialism.
s
ok…lets disagree on how much influence IMF pressure had. Greece has, despite massive riots, done major spending cuts to fulfill troika conditions.
but u agree with the 4 main points that i mentioned?
Shailesh, it is a novel argument to make that although PR encourages socialists tendencies, FPTP also does so, through barriers to entry.
Actually, FPTP tends to encourage two largest groups of political opinion, regardless of whether these are socialist or otherwise. It so happens that in India to two largest “sides” of opinion were socialist.
Except for the mid-1960s, when Swatantra Party (classical liberal) did become the second largest party in Parliament. But it only had 44 seats, and most of its MPs were totally confused and didn’t understand Rajaji. Most were conservative Hindus and later joined Jan Sangh/BJP.
India has therefore had two dominant political parties under FPTP – as predicted. But both were socialist (one was Hindu socialist, the other “secular” socialist).
Should any genuine classical liberal opposition actually emerge in India, it will displace one of these two parties, as socialists are forced to combine, and those less inclined to socialism join this new group.
Entry barriers are serious, but not insurmountable at all. Mere 30 per cent of the vote will usually win a seat.
If classical liberals can’t even get 30 per cent of the votes they should not waste time trying to contest elections.
s
ok, so now we are agreeing more..so, thanks!
as a potential entrant, you seem to be fine with ‘serious but surmountable’ entry barriers. I appreciate the spirit.
However, purely from a market/customer perspective, do you think its fair that any potential new supplier has to be good enough to gain 30% market share? Especially in a market where customers liking you is not enough…they will choose you only if they believe that 30% of the market will like you at a similar time as them.
“Actually, FPTP tends to encourage two largest groups of political opinion, regardless of whether these are socialist or otherwise. It so happens that in India to two largest “sides” of opinion were socialist.”
thanks…this is almost exactly what i said…see point 2 of my 4 point comment.
Shailesh
I’m interested in long term reform, not in short term marketing analysis. There is simply no point in joining politics without forming government. Hence FPTP is not a barrier. Shortage of leaders is the barrier. Shortage of funds to progagate the message of liberty is the barrier.
Indians are not stupid. Once they understand the message they will vote.
I don’t have any interest in half-baked “strategic” thinking about “fair that any potential new supplier has to be good enough to gain 30% market share”. I want at least 50 per cent market share. To me politics is not about “market share”. I’m not running a company. I’m trying to TOTALLY reform India’s governance. Total success or total failure. I won’t pick any intermediate position.
s
whoa…I asked you a simple yes or no question regarding FPTP. Somehow, I gave you the impression that I am asking you to change your strategy. My apologies.
Does your answer mean that the 30% entry barrier is not a problem for India?
Yes, there is simply no problem with the 30 or 35 per cent vote requirement (should be 51 per cent ideally) to be able to represent. Political views that can’t even obtain such low levels of support do not deserve a seat at the decision making table.
wow…a 51% requirement means a run-off election between the top 2 parties or having a mandatory 2 party system!!!
sorry for the time spent, lets close this now unless you have anything to add. I TOTALLY disagree. Just like you are not in the business of converting socialists, I am not in the business of converting dictators to democrats.
and just to be clear, I don’t mean any disrespect. I really have utmost respect for you. I am just shocked and dejected with this whole experience of trying to engage with you.
As you have rightly experienced, its difficult to work with Arvind since he is looking for (blind) followers not ideas. Similar is my experience with you.
Best wishes.
A representative is the one who represents the constituency. Why would you want someone who doesn’t have the support of the majority?
s
its because 1 person can very rarely, if ever, has support of more than 50% in any constituency. There are numerous types of human beings with myriad preferences…how can 1 person/party have support of a majority? A majority can support a idea / policy but a person / party is a combination of numerous ideas/policies, etc.
So who should represent a constituency? The one who gets the second highest votes/ third highest votes/ etc….?
s
seems u are referring to geographic constituencies. I think there is no need for a MP or MLA to represent any geographic constituency.
My preferred electoral system is party list proportional representation where MPs are not tied to specific geographic constituencies.The only (or primary) role of MP (or MLAs) is to together make laws for the whole nation (or state). These laws have impact on different constituencies (regional, preofessional, ideological, geographic, etc.) ACROSS THE NATION. I see no reason for representatives to be tied to geographic constituencies or voters in 1 geographical constituency to rely on 1 representative to hear them.
It is probably ok for municipal corporators to be tied to specific wards since they have some responsibility for / control over public works in their constituency
Let’s revert to the source of the discussion. I said “Entry barriers are serious, but not insurmountable at all. Mere 30 per cent of the vote will usually win a seat. If classical liberals can’t even get 30 per cent of the votes they should not waste time trying to contest elections.”
I’m referring only to constituencies. You are asserting that FPTP entry barriers are high. I’m saying they are not very high. That should alleviate your concern with FPTP.
The alternative to FPTP is the Australian system (AV), but I don’t like it one bit. This system has allowed a VERY LARGE number of candidates who got second highest votes to win the seat through preferences.
EVEN IF u insist on single member districts (one representative for one geographic constituency), FPTP is a very bad choice.
IRV and Condorcet winner methods are clearly better…MAYBE approval voting also is.
I am not aware of Australia’s AV system but its likely a minor variant of IRV. If so, I am positive its better than FPTP. People winning thru second preferences is great!
maybe not worth your time but here is my simple argument in favour of IRV.
http://democracy4india.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/lets-move-from-fptp-to-irv-useful-and-non-controversial-electoral-reform/
Clearly you haven’t got my point. The person with highest vote is not the best representative? Some convoluted hodge podge is better?
I assure you I’ve seen it in Australia – and I TOTALLY reject any hodge podge system that gives spurious “weights” to this or that vote.
The simplest is usually the best. FPTP is simplest. And unambiguously the best. The common man can clearly understand what has happened. There is 100 per cent legitimacy of the result.
And these are all second order arguments anyway. The main arguments are to do with the system itself.
I’m still working on the document. Draft at: http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/Misc/PR.doc
s
if every1 could express just 1 choice, then person with highest vote is obviously better.
but i like the fact that people can indicate preferences and, in that case, person with highest FIRST PREFERENCE may not be the best.
Shailesh
What’s your meaning of “best”? Best in what way? I think that holds the key to the difference of understanding. To me best representative is the one whom the greatest number of constituents have voted for. The fastest runner gets the gold medal, not the one who came second or third. That is simple. It is coherent. It is legitimate. It is efficient.
There is a “theorem” called Occam’s razor, also a common phrase called KISS (keep it simple). In game theory the game that performs best in repeated game scenarios is the simplest: tit-for-tat.
In a situation where Arrow’s impossibility theorem applies, and you can NEVER get even three people to agree consistently to EVERYTHING, then you need to cut to the chase and get the job done in the simplest, most efficient way.
There is an even simpler model: Just draw lots. That is often done by small groups. Maybe that’s what should be done? That, however, is not desirable since there is a CLEAR way to find a winner, so we should use that. But you get the point: simplicity and clarity is vital to legitimacy.
PR advocates create “models” of human preferences that make an already bad situation worse. The STILL can’t resolve Arrow’s impossibility theorem, but end up giving disproportionately high weight to losers. Why is a preference for a loser more valuable than a preference for a winner? It is impossible to justify a PR system from ANY first principles.
s
Sanjeev – the debate in this manner doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. If you think this debate and I are worthy of your time, then lets discuss this (from first principles) over a live chat session (that you may publish).
It should take ~15 minutes to frame the debate and identify the reasons of our differences. Either of us may decide not to continue the debate beyond that point.
I can send a 1 page draft outline IF and WHEN you are ready.
Shailesh
The debate is going precisely where it should. It is exposing the flaws in PR at every level – fundamental (which I’ve covered already at length), and in practical terms. Please avoid sending me material at this stage. I’m swamped with reading lists. I’m still working on the overall mini-book on PR, and to the extent possible, I’ll discuss and rebut ALL arguments in favour of PR. If after that anything remains unrebutted, will be happy to take in more material.
So pl. wait for the booklet to be completed. When done I’ll publish a blog post and let you know.
s
ok. good luck.