Representation is not about proportionality

Why transfer power to elected representatives? Because we believe that a few representatives can do the governing job better than if we all tried to be involved in political decisions.

Now, because voters can be grouped into different identities, say: sex, age, ethnicity, ancestry, hair color, weight, literacy, religion, honesty, sexual orientation, handedness, IQ and many other personal characteristics does it mean that each of such groupings should be entitled to elect its representatives? This is absurd! Not only because we can multiply such identity groups indefinitely, but mostly because we have multiple identities and identity has little to do with the job of government or guarantees that such representatives would be qualified for the governing job.

That is why representation must be entrusted to like-minded people that we believe to be the best qualified for the job. That is the reason why we entrust representation to open party organizations.

However, what happens when such parties are closed or overtaken by self-perpetuating special interest groups or partocracies that discriminate or discourage members from specific identities (e.g. women or gypsies)? The solution is for the electors not to vote on such parties.

But, what happens if, without discriminating, some parties do not seek actively for talent among several identity groups (e.g. retired, young, Jews, immigrants, etc.) without this really causing a decline in the quality of its candidates for election? Should the electors also punish such parties at the vote? This is not necessarily so if voters are not in favor of positive discrimination or think that such identity groups do not really wish to be involved in politics.

This is the fundamental reason why policies of positive discrimination should never be part of the electoral rules. It is a matter for the parties to implement such policies and for the electors to judge their actions.

However, today there is a danger for democracy because parties are replacing the fight for their ideologies and ideals by claims over representation of specific identity groups (e.g. businessmen instead of market capitalism or LGBTs instead of sexual freedom).

Instead of disputing elections on the basis of policies parties try to divide the electorate into as many identities (electoral tribes) as possible which they claim to represent.

That is the reason why proportionality represents a return to a new type of tribalism and a threat to genuine representation. In the extreme, identity policies may even destroy democracy.

True Democracy ≡ Representative Democracy

Los indignados (the indignant) sit-in by young people in central Madrid and other European capitals is not just one more “youth protest”. The true grievance expressed by many protesters is not simply an adulthood ritual.

Every generation of teens and youngsters needs to affirm their adulthood by contesting their parents. This is usually done by adopting different life styles, entertainments and clothing or by endorsing naive political views. This is a positive process promoting creativity and carried out mostly in peaceful ways (despite the occasional brawl by a few thrilled by violence).

However, the indignant complaints have more to do with failed job expectations and unemployment and what they see as the lack of hope. They feel betrayed by elected politicians who pay only lip service to their concerns. Traditionally left wing parties and anarchists capitalize on this discontent to recruit members and cause some havoc. Ironically this has been a key reason why many youngsters have kept away from such protesters.

Although on the background those parties still try to manipulate the protesters, in general, these have been led by genuine non-partisan leaders. So why are the protesters still embracing revolutionary utopia falsehoods and anti-capitalist propaganda?

Some in the Democracy Camp in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol demand a “Real Democracy Now through neighborhood assemblies”. This amounts to direct democracy, which throughout history has always failed to provide democracy and led to dictatorships. This idea of direct rule by the people is populism based on a false view of early forms of democracy in ancient Greece. Rule by the majority, subject to a constitutional limitation of power to protect minorities, is the true democracy. And that is representative democracy.

Still, youngsters are right in questioning why elected representatives fail to act on their concerns. They need a clear answer to: a) they do not care; b) there is nothing they can do about it; c) the problems are transitory and the labor market will recover soon; or d) that the measures they are taking will work but take some time.

First they need to dispel the first perception. Second they need to fight the main source of anxiety – uncertainty.

This means that classical liberal progressive politicians cannot entrust the young generation to some kind of anger therapy provided by left wing revolutionaries and hope that anxiety dies out soon. For a young person who has been unemployed for more than two years it is not enough to hear that the market will solve the problem some day.

They need hope, and need it now. So, whether politicians believe in demand or supply measures they need to demonstrate action now.

Such action must also include education on why representative democracy together with constitutional liberalism and market capitalism are not the cause but the solution to their problems. They are in fact the only solution that can give young people hope in the future.