ABSTRACT: According to the author the essence of democracy is the possibility for the people to "get rid of a government without shedding blood, by means of a voting". The majority electoral systems can ensure this possibility more than the proportional systems.

(Notizie Radicali m. 200 of the 31st of August 1987 from "La Stampa" of the 7th of August 1987)

The problem of democracy

------------------------

My main interests are nature and science: particularly cosmology. Since when, in July 1919, I gave up Marxism for good, I had been interested in politics and its theory only as a citizen, as a democrat. But the increasingly strong right- and left-winged totalitarian movements of the twenties and beginning of the thirties, and subsequently the coming into power of Hitler in Germany, forced me to meditate on the problem of democracy.

In spite of the fact that my book "Open society and its enemies" devoted not one word to Hitler and to Nazis, it was taken to be my contribution to the war against Hitler. The book is a theory of democracy against the old and new attacks of its enemies, it was published in 1945 and has been constantly published since then. But what I consider to be the most important point has very seldom been fully understood.

As everyone knows, "democracy" means "people's government" or "people's sovereignty" as opposed to "aristocracy" (government of the best or most noble) and "monarchy" (government of one person). But the literal meaning is not of much help. Because in fact nowhere do the people govern: in all parts of the world it is the governments that govern (and unfortunately bureaucracies as well, that is, the civil servants and the officials, who very seldom or never assume their responsibilities).

Moreover, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway and Sweden are monarchies, but at the same time are excellent examples of democracy (with the possible exception of Sweden, where an irresponsible fiscal bureaucracy presently detains a dictatorial power), in complete opposition to East Germany, which calls itself a democracy, and wrongly, unfortunately.

There are only two forms of state

---------------------------------

Which is the crucial point then? There are, in fact, only two possible forms of state: that in which it is possible to do away with a regime without shedding blood, by means of a voting, and that in which this is not possible.

The name of these forms of state depends on, but does not come from, this. Normally, the first is called "democracy" and the latter "dictatorship" or "tyranny". It is best not to quarrel on the meaning of words (as in the case of Eastern Europe). The decisive element is only the possibility of getting rid of the government without shedding blood.

There is only one way to make a government collapse: voting

-----------------------------------------------------------

There are different ways of making a government collapse. The best method is that of voting: new elections or a vote in a freely elected Parliament. This is the main thing.

It is therefore imprecise to stress (as has always been done for Marx and Plato) the question: who must govern? The people (populace) or the few best? The (good) workers or the (bad) capitalists? The majority or the minority? The left-wing party or the right-wing party, or a centre party? All these questions are incorrectly posed. Because the essential point is not who must govern, provided it is possible to make a government collapse without shedding blood. Each government that knows that it can be made to collapse has a strong incentive to behave in such a way as to keep people satisfied. This incentive however fails to exist when the government knows that this is no easy task.

The problem of voting

---------------------

To prove how important this theory of democracy is in practice, I should like to apply it to the problem of proportional voting. If I am criticizing a form of voting which is established by the excellent Constitution of the Republic of Germany, I am doing it with the sole purpose of attempting to open a debate on an aspect of the problem which, as far as I know, is rarely questioned. Constitutions must not be modified irresponsibly, it is wise to discuss the matters in a critical manner also in order to bear their meaning well in mind.

In the democracies of Western Europe, a type of vote, essentially different from that in force in Great Britain or the United States, is prevalent. It is based on the idea of local representation. In Great Britain each electoral constituency sends one representative to Parliament: the one who has received the highest number of votes, regardless of which party he belongs to or whether he belongs to a party at all. His duty is that of representing, according to his conscience, the interests of those persons who live in his electoral constituency, irrespective of whether they do or do not belong to a party. Of course, parties exist and play an important role in the formation of the government. But when the representative of an electoral constituency believes it to be in the interest of his constituency (and possibly of all the population) to vote against the party he belongs to, or break off from it, he must do so. Winston Churchill, the most important politician of the present century, changed party twice, and

never was a easy-going activist.

In continental Europe the situation is totally different. With the majority system each Party sends a number of representatives suitable to reflect in the most faithful possible way the votes received.

The role of the parties

----------------------

The role of the parties is therefore acknowledged by the Constitution as being linked to fundamental rights. The single member of Parliament is officially voted as a representative of his party. For this reason he cannot have the right to vote against his party; on the contrary, he is morally committed, because he has been voted only as a representative of that party (and in case he found himself in contrast with his conscience, he should have the moral duty to resign, even if the Constitution does not provide for this).

I know, of course, that we need parties. Up to now, nobody has found a democratic system that can do without parties. But political parties are not always pleasant phenomena. And yet, without them, political life cannot function: all our democracies are not people's governments, but governments of parties. That is, governments of the leaders of the party. The bigger the party, the less it is united, the less it is democratic, the less those that vote for it can influence the leadership and the political programme.

The conviction that a Parliament chosen according to the proportional system is the best reflection of the people and its wishes, is false.

A Parliament of this kind represents neither the people nor its opinions, but only the influence (and the propaganda) that the parties have succeeded in exerting on the population on election day. Moreover, it makes it more difficult to turn the day of the elections into that which it could and should be: the day of the people's evaluation on the work carried out by the government.

There is no theory of democracy

-------------------------------

A valid theory of democracy therefore does not exist, nor does a valid theory requesting the proportional system exist. We must ask ourselves this question: in practice, how does the proportional system act on the formation of a government? And on the decisive possibility of deposing a government?

Criticism towards the proportional system

----------------------------------------

1) The higher the number of parties, the more difficult it becomes to form a government. This is an unquestionable reality based on experience and an indisputable reality based on common sense. If there were only two parties, the forming of a government would be simple. But the proportional system has the effect of conferring a consistent influence to the smaller parties - sometimes a decisive influence - on the forming of a government and therefore on its political decisions.

Anyone would agree on this. And everyone knows that the proportional system tends to increases the number of parties. But until the concept is accepted that the "essence" of democracy consists in the people's government, we must, as Democrats, accept this difficulty, because the proportional system appears "essential".

Two-party system and pluralism

-------------------------------

2) But the proportional system, and therefore the plurality of parties, acts, if possible, in an even more negative way when the question is that of deposing a government by means of a popular decision, for example through new elections of the Parliament. Firstly because it is a well known fact that there are many parties and therefore it is difficult to expect one of them to obtain absolute majority. Therefore, if things are carried out this way the popular will has not expressed itself against any of the parties. None of them has been sacked, none of them has been condemned.

Secondly, nobody expects the election day to be the day of the people's judgement on the government. Sometimes it was a minority government. Therefore it wasn't in the conditions to do what it believed to be right, but was forced to make concessions. Or else, it was a coalition government in which none of the parties involved was completely responsible.

This way, people get used to the idea of not holding responsible of the decisions of the government any of the political parties or any of their leaders. And the fact that a party loses 5 or 10% of votes is considered by no one as a condemnation verdict, and least of all by the electors and by the people in power. The explanation is simply that of a temporary fall in popularity.

Thirdly: even when the majority of the electors wants to get rid of the majority government in power, it is not bound to succeed. Because even if a party, which until then had absolute majority (so that it could have been considered responsible) loses this majority, with the proportional system, it will still remain the largest party. Therefore it will be able to form a government coalition with the support of one of the smaller parties. Thus, the leader of a large party, even if the latter has lost the elections, will continue to remain in charge, against the opinion of the majority and on the basis of the decision of a small party which can be far from expressing the "people's will".

Of course, a small party can cause the collapse of a government even without new elections, without a new mandate of the electorate, and form a new government with the opposition parties: in grotesque contrast with the idea that is the basis of the proportional system, that is, that the influence of a party should correspond to the number of its electors.

Facts like this are very frequent. And where there is a large number of parties and where coalitions are the usual formula, they have become commonplace.

What happens if the proportional method is not adopted

------------------------------------------------------

It is unquestionably true that similar facts can occur even in a country in which the proportional system is not in force. But in those countries - such as Great Britain or the United States - the tendency has been that of having two large parties in competition with each other. It is that bipartisan system of which Winston Churchill used to say: "Democracy is the worst form of government, excepting all the others". What he meant was: no form of government is good or reliable or free from corruption. Granted all this, democracy is still the best solution found up to now to the problem of ruling.

It seems to me that a formula making the bipartisan system possible is the best formula of democracy, in that it always lead to self-criticism on the part of the parties. When one of the two large parties experiences a heavy defeat, it usually provides to a radical internal reform. This is a consequence of the competition and of the clearly negative response of the electorate, which cannot be neglected. Thanks to this system, parties are forced, from time to time, to learn from their mistakes. And if they don't, they are ruined.

My remarks against the proportional system do not mean that I want to give all democracies the advice of giving up this formula. I would simply like to give new impulse to the debate on this topic. It is naive and superficial to be convinced that the moral superiority of the proportional system can be logically abstracted from the idea of democracy, and that the continental systems are the best, fairest or the most democratic compared to the Anglo-Saxon system simply because they adopt the proportional system.

A morally wrong theory

----------------------

In conclusion, the idea that the proportional system is more democratic than the British or U.S. system cannot be supported because it is based on an obsolete idea of democracy conceived as a popular government (which is itself based on the so-called theory of sovereignty of the State). This theory is morally wrong, and is unsustainable: it has been surpassed by the theory of the power of destitution which belongs to the majority.

The moral argument is even more important than the practical argument that no more than two completely responsible and competing parties are needed to provide the electors with the power to judge a government on election day. The proportional system contains in itself the danger that the decision of the majority can be minimized and the possibility that an electoral defeat could have a positive effect on parties, which democracy might need. And for a clear decision of the majority it is important that there be the strongest possible and most capable possible opposition party. In the contrary case the electors are often forced to keep a lousy government just because they have good reasons to presume that "there is nothing better" available.

Is my defence of the bipartisan system perhaps in contrast with the idea of an open society? Is the acceptance of a wide number of opinions and theory, in other words pluralism, perhaps not the characteristic of a free society and of its quest for truth? And does this pluralism not express itself also in a variety of parties?

The true function of a political party

--------------------------------------

Mu answer is the following. The function of a political party is that of forming a government or, as an opposition, that of critically controlling the work of the government.

To control critically means to control the tolerance of a government toward the different opinions, the different ideologies and religions (provided these do not prove to be intolerant: because ideologies that advocate intolerance lose the right to tolerance).

Certain ideologies will attempt - succeeding or not - to dominate a party or to found a new one. This way there will be an alternate game between opinions, ideologies, religions on the one hand and the larger parties on the other hand.

But the idea that plurality of ideologies or opinions must be reflected in a plurality of parties seems to me as being politically wrong. Philosophically wrong as well. Because a too close a relation with the policies of the parties does not agree with the purity of a doctrine.