A Commissioner for Political Plurality?

I came across an article yesterday advocating for the creation of a new position: Commissioner for Political Plurality (my capitals).

The author, Reverend Dr Michael Bird, started by referring to voter anger and the rise of extremists, and gave some examples closer to home of concern to him – for instance, one of the Greens being President of the Senate or Prime Minister (which I’m actually OK with), the Sex Party’s advertisements about taxing the Church (which I consider he slightly misrepresented – perhaps understandably), and the apparent xenophobic connections of some of our conservative politicians, which is a concern that I share.

The election of Trump in the USA was cited as an example of how objectionable politicians can rise to power, and the author then stated:

“The danger is that political parties, whether mainstream or minor, can modulate extremist views, cultivate ethno-nationalism, and move to silence dissent.”

Up to a point, I agree with that warning. There are a few parties, such as the Australian Democrats, which Don Chipp started to “keep the bastards honest” and maybe some of the smaller parties (e.g., the Australian Progressives) where that is unlikely, but there is always the possibility of change if enough members join who don’t accept a party’s (or any group’s) goals.

The author gives examples of the dangers he associates with right and left – and, again, I disagree with his assessments of the dangers of religious coercion from the left, as my minority religion experiences that from the religious right.

To counter this, a position of Commissioner for Political Plurality is suggested, with the Religious Freedom Roundtable organised by former human rights commissioner and now Liberal Member for Goldstein Tim Wilson to pursue “a settlement between religious communities and LGBTI advocacy groups that respects both religious liberty and equality for sexual minorities”.

My immediate reaction to that was to wonder if my and other minority religions had been shut out as is so often the case in multifaith/interfaith events, which tends to favour, in my experience, the Abrahamic religions, and maybe one or two of the other big ones.

And that reaction, and our divergences of view, are a perfect example of why something along these lines would be good.

As the author states:

“Whatever our differences, progressive or conservative, whether urban or rural, gay or God-fearing, immigrant or fifth generation ocker, we are stronger together than we are apart.”

Again – there is a point of difference there, as I know many LGBTI Christians, but the point that we are richer and more resilient when we embrace diversity is as true for us as it is for biodiversity in the natural world.

I could state that there are natural checks and balances in having a plurality of views, which is true enough, but I also consider there are evolutionary advantages, in a sense – society can explore a range of paths, and then have some evidence for choosing one that works. As an example, society can choose not to live under totalitarian communism because some parts of the world didn’t go down that path last Century, and got to see the problems that that led to.

Of course, we’re now seeing the problems that go with unbridled capitalism, and the fact that not all the world has gone down the US path means we can choose another option.

And, believe it or not, we’re getting better at doing this. We’ve even realised we can make informed choices about our religious / spiritual / humanist / agnostic / atheist pathways …

To some extent, that is because we are mostly better educated, and the “good” media (like the ABC, as oppose to tabloids) helps us know what is going on, and provides informed commentary to help us think about the issues. Actually, the range of media provides us with a range of political viewpoints and a richer appreciation of any one issue, as we get to see it through many different facets – including those we disagree with, which gives us some insight into those we are seeking to co-exist with.

Going back to education, that is one of the roles that Dr Bird proposes for the Commissioner for Political Pluralism, teaching people to embrace (my word) “confident pluralism”, which is “a socio-political philosophy developed by American legal philosopher John Inazu which seeks to promote peace in the face of social fissures and political fault lines”.

I consider that to be admirable and highly desirable, and a way to start transforming this world into a better place.

Is a Commissioner for Political Pluralism the best or a good way to realise that goal?

Well, better education about political process would be good. That’s something I’ve long suspected the yanks do better than us, but I would like any education on process to go beyond the mechanics of voting and passing laws, and also consider fundamentals such as the collaborative decision making at the heart of our political system.

Debate on the topic could also potentially be good –and the “potentially” qualification is well illustrated by the concerns over the recent proposed plebiscite, where the risk of abuse, assault and suicide was real, and the imbalance associated with the endemic preponderance of one side was under-acknowledged, if at all.

Are there other alternatives beyond the creation of a new position?

Well, we could try some sort of law, but that could be fairly easily repealed by future parties, so perhaps we could add some provisions around political pluralism to our Constitution.

That would be much, much harder to change (although it would also be commensurately harder to implement in the first place), so it behooves us to be sure that the change is actually what we want and consider best – which is similar to the debates over proposals for a national Bill or Rights, and, of course, a good, well informed public debate can help.

At this point, I’d like to consider the USA again.

After the Presidential elections last year, a number of people in the USA bemoaned their Electoral College system, and opined that it should be changed.

Well, changing a system because the result isn’t what you wanted is fundamentally unsound – unwise. Those changes could always potentially go the other way: advocates for changing the Electoral College system often mention the Al Gore-George Bush contest, but some people claim that Richard Nixon won the popular vote against John F Kennedy, for instance (see here).

If you want to change something, do so because you are set on something better, not because you want to control the result.

Now, in the case of the US system, according to the Federalist Papers, the Electoral College was created to ensure that men of wisdom (excluding women and slaves was not seen as contrary to wisdom, in those days) would do the actual voting. Well, the obvious flaw in that from my point of view is that, if I am voting for people on the basis of their wisdom, I want to vote directly, and in an informed way, for those people, not for a candidate and then have someone else get in-between my vote and my choice of candidate.

That system has led to a significant amount of debate and thought over the issue of “faithless voters” in the electoral college, people who go against the decision of their state’s voters – some states have even banned such behaviour, which goes against the intentions of those who created the system, and there have been suggestions of a proportional allocation of votes.

Perhaps it is better to take a step back, and look at whole thing – specifically, is that intermediate step of an Electoral College of “Wise People” redundant in this day and age of widespread education, better media and more egalitarian expectations of democracy?

Did the system come undone shortly after its invention because of the development of political parties?

I consider that is a valid point, and one that is significant in many political systems, as I know of none that properly address the issue (and haven’t tried researching the point). Perhaps the closest we’ve come to this is ensuring that “replacement Senators” for a casual vacancy are from the same party – which was adopted after the convention to this effect was breached.

I would prefer that our Constitution properly acknowledged parties, and reduced the use of unwritten conventions – which the aforementioned US President-elect Trump is illustrating the fragility of. Could this, perhaps, be a better field for preserving our political plurality?

But I still like the idea of education, and maybe “the best” solution is a combination of measures, which is perhaps a bit along the lines of not keeping all one’s eggs in one basket .