History and Development of Indirect Democracy

Conceptual Foundations and Models of Democracy

The study of democracy involves understanding different models of putting political power into the hands of the people.
Two primary models identified are: - Direct Democracy: A model exemplified by the ancient Greeks where citizens directly control political power. They use this power to create the rules and regulations under which they live themselves. - Indirect Democracy: The characteristic model of the modern era. In this model, political power is transferred to a group of representatives through competitive elections.
In an indirect democracy, elected representatives (politicians) exercise the actual political power to make rules.
These rules are subject to checks and balances, which the speaker notes are often less than democratic in nature.
The fundamental reality of indirect democracy is that ordinary citizens almost never have a direct say in the rules under which they live unless they are elected members of parliament.

The Evolution and Restricted History of Modern Democracy

Strictly speaking, if democracy is defined as a system where the majority of the public votes for representatives in competitive elections, it did not begin with the American Revolution in the $18^{th}$ century.
Instead, true democracy didn't arrive until the mid- $20^{th}$ century because significant restrictions existed on who could vote in so-called democratic states.
These restrictions were justified by elites' anxiety regarding the potential political power of groups such as the poor, racialized minorities, and women. These groups were perceived as threats to the status quo and entrenched privilege.
Historically, voting was viewed as a privilege granted to a select few rather than an inseparable right of community membership.

Voting Restrictions in the United States

The American Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal," yet in practice, many were excluded.
Racialized Minorities: Slavery was deeply entrenched. People of color were only guaranteed the theoretical right to vote after the American Civil War via the $15^{th}$ Amendment in $1870$ . - The $15^{th}$ Amendment quote: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." - Practical obstacles remained until recently, including literacy tests, special tax requirements, and outright coercion, particularly in the U.S. South. - The $24^{th}$ Amendment ( $1964$ ) banned poll taxes in federal elections. - The Voting Rights Act of $1965$ provided comprehensive legislation to prohibit exclusionary practices.
Women: Women were not fully enfranchised in the United States until the $19^{th}$ Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in $2020$ .

Suffrage History in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom maintained strict property qualifications for much of its democratic history.
$1800$ : Only $3\%$ of adults could vote (approximately $200,000$ property-owning men).
$1884$ : Suffrage reached only $25\%$ of the public.
$1928$ : Finally, $100\%$ of the adult population was granted the right to vote.

The History of the Canadian Franchise

$1867$ (First Federal Election): - Total Population: $3,230,000$ . - Eligible Voters: $361,028$ (approx. $11\%$ of the public). - Criteria: Male, property-holding, British subjects, aged $21$ or older. - Exclusions: Nearly $90\%$ of Canadians were excluded, including almost $50\%$ of the adult male population.
Gradual Expansion: - Property qualifications for voting were eliminated by the $1920s$ (though they remain for Senate service). - Women: Obtained federal vote in $1918$ . Provincial franchise varied: Manitoba ( $1916$ ) was earliest; Quebec ( $1940$ ) was the holdout. - Canadians of Asian Descent: Right to vote in federal elections guaranteed in $1948$ . Previously, if a province (e.g., British Columbia) excluded them, they were excluded federally. - Status First Nations: These individuals were not allowed to vote without losing their treaty status until $1960$ .
$2021$ Federal Election Data: - Total Population: $38,131,104$ . - Eligible Voters: $27,642,171$ (approx. $72\%$ ). - Current restrictions are primarily based on age and citizenship status.

Critique 1: The Gap Between Voters and Representatives

There is a significant potential distance between the people (the theoretical source of power) and the representatives (the actual users of power).
In between elections (every $4$ to $5$ years), governments are free to govern as they see fit, often leading to a wide gap between public wishes and political delivery.
Promise Tracking (Polimeter Data): - Justin Trudeau Government (as of August $2022$ ): Made $1,274$ promises; fully kept $30\%$ , broke $16\%$ . - Stephen Harper Government: Explicitly broke $16\%$ of its promises.
Broken promises can lead to citizen disconnect, causing people to turn away from standard politics or look toward marginal alternatives like populism.

Critique 2: Declining Voter Turnout

Voter turnout rates have shown a distressing downward trend in many liberal democracies.
Canadian Federal Turnout: - $1958$ : $80\%$ - $1988$ : $75\%$ - $2008$ : $59.5\%$ - $2019$ : Just over $67\%$ - $2021$ : Just over $62.3\%$
Provincial Turnout: Often much lower. - Ontario $2022$ : $43.5\%$ (lowest turnout ever, compared to a record high of $74.1\%$ in $1934$ ). More than half of eligible voters did not participate.
Reasons for non-voting include apathy or a conscious choice reflecting the belief that voting makes no meaningful difference.

Critique 3: The Marxist Argument and Private Power

Marxists argue that democracy is incomplete because people lack collective control over every source of power, specifically private economic power.
Public power is held to account via elections, but private power is not.
Economic Power: Corporate bosses, CEOs, and shareholders exercise power over employees and the broader environment (e.g., poverty, environmental degradation) without public consent.
Impact on Public Sphere: Wealth allows certain citizens to influence or resist government power more effectively than others. 1. Coercion: Wealth provides protection from state coercion. A rich defendant can hire better lawyers and is less likely to face harsh sentences compared to a poor defendant for identical crimes. 2. White Collar vs. Blue Collar Crime: A blue-collar criminal stealing $20$ from McDonald's faces hard prison time. In contrast, white-collar crimes involving hundreds of millions (e.g., the $2008$ financial crisis) rarely result in high-ranking officials serving time.
Case Study: SNC-Lavalin: - In $2015$ , the Quebec-based corporation faced criminal charges for fraud, corruption, and bribery overseas. - The corporation lobbied the federal government to create a "Deferred Prosecution Agreement" (DPA). - The DPA allows a corporation to admit guilt and pay a fine while suspending criminal charges, protecting the corporation from being locked out of federal contracts for $10$ years. - The Trudeau government passed the legislation in $2018$ . - Conflict ensued when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pressured the Attorney General to grant the DPA, leading to Trudeau being charged with violating ethics rules under Section $9$ of the Conflict of Interest Act.

Critique 4: Media, Influence, and Authority

Influence and Media: Wealthy interests own key sources of news (TV, newspapers, Facebook, Google). This affects news coverage and "manufactures consent." - Example: G20 Summit in Toronto ( $2010$ ): Media imagery focused heavily on burning police cars and violence. This narrative suggested protesters lacked rational objections to globalization and that dissent was tantamount to anarchy, omitting the underlying reasons for the protests. - Modern Comparison: The $2022$ "Freedom Convoy" and anti-COVID lockdown protests offer a similar case for unpacking media-constructed narratives.
Authority and Office: It is significantly easier for the wealthy to access and occupy political offices (MP, Senator, Judge) than the poor, thereby controlling the flow of authority.
Conclusion: Marxists conclude that democracy and capitalism cannot meaningfully coexist because unequal economic concentrations will always spill over to influence public decisions.

Critique 5: The Territorial Scale of Democracy

Modern democracies assume states are the highest political units. However, we have state democracy but no international or global democracy.
David Held argues that democracy must rescale territorially to meet $21^{st}$ -century realities: 1. International Repercussions: National decisions (e.g., US/Russia arms races, Canadian oil extraction/CO2, COVID-19 vaccine hoarding) affect people globally. Affected parties currently have no say in these cross-border decisions. 2. Multinational Corporations (MNCs): MNCs exploit the lack of international accountability by pressuring states to lower labor or environmental standards under threat of relocation. 3. International Organizations: Rules are already written by the WTO, IMF, and UN. These organizations are accountable to state representatives rather than popular representatives.

David Held's Cosmopolitan Democracy

Held does not advocate for a single "World Government," which many find dangerous due to the lack of an "exit option."
Instead, he proposes Cosmopolitan Democracy: overlapping spheres of democracy where individuals belong to multiple political communities simultaneously.
Key Proposals: - Regional Parliaments: Modeled after the European Union Parliament. People vote for both national and regional representatives for common regional issues. - Democratizing International Organizations: Allowing these bodies to be controlled by elected officials rather than unelected bureaucracies. - International Court: Allowing individuals to sue any layer of government for violations of common democratic and human rights principles. - United Nations Reform: Moving beyond the "One State, One Vote" model in the General Assembly and addressing the power of the Security Council—specifically the veto power held by the five permanent members. - Global Social Charter: Controlling MNC power by requiring them to uphold environmental and labor standards. Corporations could be sued in civil or criminal proceedings in any country where they operate if standards are violated.