title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
It would be anti-democratic to punish the Palestinian people for exercising their right to vote. Their vote may not be a vote for terrorism or against the peace process, but rather a response to the corruption and anarchy of the ruling party, currently Fatah, and its mismanagement of the Palestinian National Authority. Withdrawing funding is not just a signal of disapproval for the party which is elected, but a clear attempt to bring down the PNA government and overturn the election result. After all the years of western criticism of corrupt dictatorial regimes, what message does it send to Arab governments and people if the west refuses to respect the result of an election and imposes a collective punishment? | |
The law prevents US and EU governments from funding terrorist groups. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, responsible for killing hundreds of civilians, often by sending suicide bombers into Israel. Both the European Union and the US State Department have recognised this by listing Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Their governments are barred by law from providing any funding to such groups. [1] It is extremely worrying that such a violent organisation managed to win power in the most recent Palestinian election, and that committed terrorists are in government in Gaza and in control of the Palestinian budget and security forces. In 2007 both Western law, and the moral disgust at the thought that aid funding could be used to fund terror attacks, required the EU and US to stop funding the Palestinian Authority while under a Hamas government, the same would almost certainly be the case again if Hamas were to regain power. [1] Schulenburg, John. “Fatah Reconciles With Hamas.” Gateway Pundit. 27/04/2011. | |
It is these western governments themselves who define what groups are terrorist groups. They both make the definitions of terrorism and decide what groups fall into these definitions. For example the United Kingdom regarded the IRA (Irish Republican Army) as being a terrorist group while the United States did not consider them a terrorist organisation. [1] Therefore if these countries wished to deal with and provide financial aid to a new Palestinian government, even if it was the political arm of a terrorist organisation they could simply redefine it, as would almost certainly be the case if the terrorist organisation was perceived as doing something that is in the interests of these western nations. [1] | |
The outcome of the Palestinian elections should not be rewarded with aid. A terrorist organisation such as Hamas may be democratically elected, but that does not mean we have to fund its government. Respecting the decision of the Palestinian people is not the same thing as liking their choice or rewarding it with aid. The Palestinian people should realise that a vote for Hamas or any other terrorist organisation is a vote for international isolation. Showing our clear disapproval of terrorists in government sends a clear message for future elections both in Palestine and in other countries. | |
The history of the IRA does not provide a useful precedent for dealing with Hamas. Leaving aside questions of how genuine the IRA’s conversion to peace and democracy really is, parallels with Hamas and the Palestinian conflict are misleading. Compared to the religious fundamentalism of Hamas, Irish republicans were pretty secular and focused on gaining and using power in this world. They wanted to force Britain out of Northern Ireland, but not to wipe Britain itself off the map. There has never been an IRA suicide bomber and, faced with a failing armed struggle, the movement’s leaders chose to compromise. Hamas is entirely different in its beliefs and attitudes, and there is no reason to suppose that funding it in power will encourage it to change its strategy or aims. | |
Arab and Muslim states won’t necessarily make up any budget shortfall if the EU and USA stop funding the PNA. Many Arab governments would be deeply unhappy at seeing Islamists in government and even though they do not like Israel, they have no wish to inflame the situation further. More moderate countries in the region recognise Israel and want the peace process to move forward so would be just as likely to demand that a terrorist group gives up terror and disarms as the west. Iran may be more sympathetic, but almost all Palestinians are Sunni rather than Shia Muslims, and Iran has its own international problems such as sanctions that are making an economic impact so it may not be in a position to subsidize other governments. There is also no evidence that the Palestinians would turn to such states. In December 2007, 87 countries and international organisations, including Serbia and Nicaragua, pledged to donate $7.4 billion to the PNA over three years. [1] This amount is far more than previous US and EU funding and there is no evidence that its acceptance has led to Palestine depending on anti-Israel regimes. [1] Stotsky, Steven. “Does Foreign Aid Fuel Palestinian Violence?” Middle East Quarterly. Summer 2008. | |
The loss of funding would destabilise and radicalise Palestine. Palestine is very dependent on foreign aid, the PNA is dependent on aid for 50% of its budget and per head the Palestinians are the biggest recipients of aid in the world. [1] The loss of funding would therefore destabilise both the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian society as a whole. 140,000 PNA jobs are dependent upon the income from western funding, and these workers in turn help support more than a third of the Palestinian population. [2] Cutting funding could lead to the collapse of any government system and cause great suffering among the people who would lose their chief source of income has gone. Both these things are likely to radicalise the Palestinian people further and make peace less likely. [1] Levy, Judith, ‘Palestinian economy dangerously dependent on foreign aid’, The Washington Times Communities, 27 May 2011, [2] “Palestinians ‘face financial crisis’.” BBC News. 21/02/2006. | |
Western donors should support fair government The west should support democratically elected, just, uncorrupted government no matter who provides it. Hamas could make a much better government than Fatah, it is a religious movement dedicated to political and social action. For many years it has run the most effective welfare programmes in the Palestinian territories, especially Gaza, including orphanages, schools, clinics and help for the needy. [1] The honesty and discipline of its leaders and followers provide a stark contrast with the corruption and chaos of the Fatah-run administration of Yasser Arafat and Mahmood Abbas. They paid lip service to the peace process but either could not, or would not control their followers so as to make a clear commitment to peace. At least with Hamas in power, the Palestinians would be better and more honestly governed, and billions of dollars in aid money will no longer be stolen by a corrupt elite. Hamas in Gaza by comparison has established an efficient public administration and has an ambitious infrastructure program. [2] In addition, militias and security forces are likely to be under much more effective control, making genuine negotiations about a long-term ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians much more plausible. After all, a deal which excludes Hamas has no chance at all of holding. [1] Putz, Ulrike. “Uncle Hamas Cares for Palestinians.” Spiegel. 12/20/2006. [2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011, | |
Engaging with Hamas is the best way to secure a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. There is a clear precedent for engaging with terrorist groups moving towards a political track. Like Hamas in recent years, at the end of the 1970s, the IRA was a terrorist organisation which rejected the political process. In the early 1980s, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, decided to stand for elections. As elected representatives grappled with local issues and had to work with others on councils and committees, the movement changed and, in 1994, the IRA declared a ceasefire. [1] More recently, Sinn Fein leaders have held ministerial positions in Northern Ireland and the IRA has ended the armed struggle. This was a long process but it shows clearly how, if we respect any elected terrorist group’s popular mandate and are prepared to engage with them, they may be encouraged to give up terrorism and make concessions for peace. Indeed some hard liners in Hamas controlled Gaza worry that exactly such a scenario may happen. [2] [1] Schmidt, William E. “Cease-Fire in Northern Ireland.” New York Times. 01/09/1994. [2] Shaikh, Salman, ‘Don’t Forget Gaza’, ForeignPolicy.com, 24 January 2011, | |
Withholding funds will cause Palestine to rely on anti-Israeli regimes. Cutting off aid to the Palestinian National Authority would be counter-productive no matter who is elected in. The PNA would have to replace funding from somewhere, this would inevitably mean turning for aid to Muslim and Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran as Hamas did. [1] The west may therefore simply force the Palestinians in to the arms of countries that are much more hostile to Israel resulting in the Palestinians simply being more hard-line to please their new paymasters. Allowing the Palestinians to become dependent upon such anti-Israel regimes will end any influence the west has had with the PNA and push it in a more extremist direction. Potentially, such alliances could make a regional conflict more likely. [1] Watt, Nicholas. “US urges Arab states to fund Palestinians after Hamas victory.” The Guardian. 31/01/2006. | |
This assumes that it is Hamas that is elected or another group that has been involved in running welfare programmes. It should however be noted that while Hamas has effectively provided welfare programmes it has at the same time used those same civilians as human shields. During its time in power in Gaza Hamas has had little impact except for starting a conflict with Israel, as a result Gaza is in a worse position than the West Bank with 80% of the population dependent on international aid, 61% are food insecure and 90% of water supplied is not suitable for drinking. [1] [1] Hasan, Mehdi, ‘No end to the strangulation of Gaza’, New Statesman, 6 January 2011, | |
Cutting off aid to the PNA need not result in mass suffering among the Palestinian people. Humanitarian aid would certainly continue, although this could no longer be channelled through the PNA but rather to individual schemes run by non-governmental organisations. In any case, the greatest suffering is caused by a lack of a peace process with Israel. A commitment to peace talks shown by a terrorist group pledging to end terrorism would help allow the economic development needed to create jobs and relieve poverty in the Palestinian territories. | |
Buying time only helps the terrorists. It gives them time to arm themselves and gain allies abroad so enabling a more deadly series of attacks later on. Terrorist groups usually only have a very finite number of resources so the state should seek to press the terrorist group until it has nothing left to fall back on. It is notable that each time Israel has failed to destroy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza they have quickly been resupplied b allies in Syria and Iran making them more difficult to fight next time. [1] [1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006, | |
No negotiation encourages the hunt for a bigger lever When fighting terrorists the state either needs to answer some of the terrorists demands or fight back. When the state fights back the by the terrorists response is almost always more bloodshed using more and more extreme methods for example the first intifada was fought using sticks and stones, but when this, and the peace process that followed it failed, or rather did not show the results that was hoped for, the second was a major step up to suicide bombing. This is because when the terrorists fail they are unlikely to pack up; instead they will try to find a bigger lever to course the state into making the move they want. In this case Arafat hoped a round of violence would bring about concessions. [1] The best way to prevent this cycle of violence is to negotiate, even if this is mostly to buy time. Even when there is no cease fire there will be no reason for the terrorists to escalate if their demands are being taken seriously. [1] Pressman, Jeremy, ‘The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’, The Journal of Conflict Studies, Vol. CCIII, No.2, Fall 2003, | |
Whether this happens really depends on the negotiations. Unfortunately negotiations without result are likely to strengthen the radicals who can show that the peaceful route is not going anywhere. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to give them what they want, and if this has to be done the concessions could have been given before there was a turn to terrorism. | |
Negotiation isolates those who are only interested in violence Just as negotiations strengthen the moderates they isolate those who are most radical and interested in a violent solution. This isolation is key to actually winning a fight against groups using terrorist methods because terrorists are almost always hiding within the community. The only way to prevent these acts is therefore to encourage their community to persuade the terrorists to reject violence, or if they are not willing to change to aid the state. The need for help from the community is recognised in almost all conflicts against terrorist groups and insurgencies. The state succeeds when it gets the moderates on board, this is shown by the conflict in Iraq where the United States turned the tide against al Qaeda in the Al-Anbar Awakening. This victory was only made possible through the engagement and cooperation with local leaders who wanted an end to violence so were willing to talk to, and join with the US military if the result was likely to be security. [1] [1] Smith, Niel, and MacFarland, Sean, ‘Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point’, Military Review, March-April 2008, pp.41-52, p.48 | |
Negotiation saves lives Almost all terrorist groups kill people, whether innocents or members of the military. Even those who limit casualties by giving warnings of their atrocities are unperturbed when they do end up taking lives. Negotiation can then be the best way to save lives both in the short and long term. In the short term negotiating can mean a cease fire, and if there are hostages their release. Over the long term negotiation is necessary if there is to be any peaceful conclusion to the conflict. As the right to life is the most fundamental right, and the duty of the states to protect its citizens is primary role of the state it is clear that the protection of these lives should be the main consideration for the state. | |
In the long term negotiation and compromise of some form is needed to bring about a final peace but it is not correct that negotiations in the short term saves lives. First of all not all terrorist groups will initiate a cease fire if they are negotiating with the government, about half continue their violence while negotiating, [1] and even if they do there is no saying all their supporters will take part. Negotiating also shows that the government is weak; the determination to 'save lives' can end up costing more lives as the terrorists see that they violence is paying dividends. They may come to the conclusion that if they kill more they will gain more concessions. [1] Cronin, Audrey Kurth, ‘Negotiating with groups that use terrorism: Lessons for policy-makers’, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Background papers, 2008, p.6 | |
Negotiations are not needed to isolate terrorists. The vast majority of citizens will abhor violence as they simply desire a quiet life in which they can make a peaceful living. The best way for the government to isolate the terrorists is to ensure the security of the community and meet some of their grievances. When the community sees that they government is in a better position to provide what they want they will support the government. The situation in Iraq was unusual in that there were important people in the community who at one point or another actively supported Al Qaeda so there needed to be negotiations with these people. In most circumstances the important members of the community are on the sidelines so negotiating with them would not be analogous to negotiating with terrorists. | |
There is nothing wrong with attempts to solve the individual grievance without reference to the terrorist group. The aim of resolving the grievance is to prevent more people joining the extremists and to isolate them from the people. When this is done it will be much easier to catch the people who are responsible for the terrorist atrocities and bring them to justice. Being willing to negotiate with the terrorist group on the other hand will likely lead to some of the concessions being that terrorists or former terrorist manage to escape justice for their acts as they will want such an amnesty to be a part of the concessions they receive in return for giving up violence. | |
Negotiation encourages moderation In every terrorist movement there are different factions and disagreements about how best to achieve their collective aims, and often terrorist groups have either direct or indirect ties with political parties with whom they share the same goals. It is clearly then in the interest of the state to strengthen the more acceptable parts of the movement whether can seriously talk to. The only way to strengthen the moderates is to negotiate. This then makes their path to a solution the more credible course for the movement as a whole to take. To demonstrate a negative example the United States and Israel were unwilling to negotiate with moderates within the PLO for fifteen years during which time not only was there a lot more bloodshed but much more radical groups formed on the Palestinian side making negotiations much more complicated in the long run as there would be multiple groups who would need to sign up to a final peace treaty. [1] [1] Chamberlin, Paul Thomas, ‘When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists’, The New York Times, 3 September 2012, | |
Negotiation is the only way to solve the underlying problem UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2003 “terrorism will only be defeated if we act to solve the political disputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for it. If we do not, we shall find ourselves acting as a recruiting sergeant for the very terrorists we seek to suppress.” [1] Terrorist campaigns don't just come out of nowhere (with the exception of some single individual acts), there is a grievance behind the acts. The terrorist is trying to have this grievance dealt with and believes the best way to this end is through violence. It is clear that the easiest way to end the conflict is simply to resolve the grievance. Even when there are no negotiations the state will usually attempt to resolve some of these grievances, however doing so unilaterally will simply show that the terrorist's violence is working without getting any guarantees of an end to the violence in return. Negotiation therefore benefits both sides. It is notable that 43% of terrorist groups that have ended since 1968 have done so as a result of negotiations compared to only 7% being defeated militarily. [2] [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Ability to reason vital in fighting terrorism, Secretary-General tells conference’, un.org, SG/SM/8885, 22 September 2003, [2] Jones, Seth G., and Libicki, Martin C., How Terrorist Groups End, RAND, 2008, p.xiii, xiv | |
It is very rare for such negotiations to provide a benefit to terrorist groups. Many states, such as the UK and USA, are unwilling to provide ransom payments so where they are provided they are often privately raised thus cannot be considered to be a result of negotiation. In such circumstances the state will have secured the release of hostages and the life of a state's citizens should be placed above comparatively small amounts of money. Where prisoners are being released as a confidence building measure the terrorists will usually be making some concession as well such as giving up some arms so the state does not end up worse off but there is more trust to enable negotiations to prevent more violence. | |
A precondition that terrorists must give up their arms and renounce violence before negotiations will ensure that negotiations never come and the violence will continue indefinitely. Terrorists realise that their influence is only as a result of their threat of violence; once this has been renounced the government will never have any reason to give them what they want. The only response to such a precondition is to force the government to drop that condition through violence. | |
Negotiation encourages more terrorism There are two ways in which negotiation encourages more terrorism. First it shows that violence can achieve its aims, a group that has committed violent acts and received negotiations in return will believe that they will gain even more from greater levels of violence. Secondly as argued in the previous point negotiations with terrorist groups gives legitimacy to political violence. This in turn will encourage other groups to resort to violence to achieve their political goals as they have seen it work for another group. Thus for example when the Fatah movement and the Palestine Liberation Organisation were legitimised by a peace process and the recognition of a form of Palestinian government other groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas came to believe that they could take terrorist actions further in order to liberate Palestine through an armed struggle. [1] [1] Schweitzer, Yoram, ‘The Rise and Fall of Suicide Bombings in the Second Intifada’, Strategis Assessment, Vol.13, No.3, October 2010, p.40 | |
Even if negotiation with one group is successful others will take their place Terrorist groups are rarely static, they change, evolve, and break up. Negotiating with one group may create peace with that group while at the same time causing a split that creates another group that is more willing to use violence. This is what happened in Northern Ireland where the peace process tamed the IRA and spawned the Real IRA, [1] a group that was more even more willing to kill innocents than its predecessor through attacks such as the Omagh bombing which killed 29 people in 1998. [2] [1] Moran, Michael, ‘Terrorist Groups and Political Legitimacy’, Council on Foreign Relations, 16 March 2006, [2] Elliott, Francis, ‘Real IRA admits to Omagh bomb and disbands’, The Telegraph, 20 October 2002, | |
Terrorists can’t be trusted – better to crush them Any group that is willing to resort to violence cannot be trusted not to simply take up arms again as soon as they perceive some new grievance. Groups that believe they can achieve what they want through force of arms will turn to violence again and again. This can be seen all over the world; thus ETA regularly declares ceasefires and breaks them just as often (1989, 1996, 1998, 2006), [1] or civil wars that have seemed to be coming to a close reignite because one or more groups believe they can gain more from another round of fighting. Thus the Tamil Tigers fought what might be considered to be four separate wars with the Sri Lankan state with a lot of ceasefires along the way. [2] It was however not negotiations but the pursuit of a ruthless military campaign that finally brought the reunification of the country. [3] [1] Dingle, Sarah, ‘ETA militants declare end to armed struggle’, ABC The World Today, 21 October 2011, [2] ‘Sri Lanka profile Timeline’, BBC News, 16 May 2013, [3] Smith, Niel A., ‘Understanding Sri Lanka’s Defeat of the Tamil Tigers’, NDU Press, 2009, | |
Negotiation provides more resources to terrorists Negotiation can help the terrorists who are negotiating in several ways. First it buys time; if the terrorist group has previously been hard pressed by the state's military then this time can be used to rest, recover and resupply, in effect for preparing for the next campaign. This is what happens whenever there is a ceasefire, or a unilateral break, in the campaign in Lebanon or Palestine as those states which are aligned to the terrorist groups such as Syria and Iran seek to resupply their allies. [1] Second in some cases negotiation can involve the state handing over resources to the terrorist group. This is most often the case with hostage negotiations where the terrorists demand the release of other terrorists who have been captured so boosting the groups manpower or else demand a ransom in return for the release of hostages. Somalia has over the last decade regularly seen payouts of ransoms to groups of pirates who have links to islamists [2] and are accused of having links to terrorists. While pirates are the highest profile ransoms the same occurs with terrorist groups, it is estimated that $70million has been paid to secure the release of western captives since 2010. [3] Releasing terrorists can also sometimes be used as a confidence building measure leading up to negotiations, which can mean helping the terrorist groups even before there are negotiations. This has most recently occurred with Israel releasing 26 Palestinian prisoners, including Yusef Irshaid who murdered an Israeli, three suspected ‘collaborators’ and planned car bombings, in order to restart peace talks. [4] [1] Spiegel, Peter, and King, Laura, ‘Israel Says Syria, Not Just Iran, Supplied Missiles to Hezbollah’, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2006, [2] Spiegel Staff, ‘Terror on the High Seas: Somali Pirates Form Unholy Alliance with Islamists’, Spiegel Online, 20 April 2009, [3] Press Association ‘David Cameron To Tell G8 ‘Stop Paying Ransoms To Terrorists’’, Huffington Post, 18 June 2013, [4] Harris, Ben, ‘Who Israel released’, Jewish Telegraphic Association, 14 August 2013, | |
The real IRA also shows how negotiation is successful. The new group did not have the tacit support from abroad in the form of the Republic of Ireland or the USA or resources of its predecessor. The violent campaign destroyed any public support and the group disbanded, its leaders were eventually found liable for the bombing. [1] The political process through the Stormont Parliament is now the accepted way to peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. [1] McDonald, Henry, ‘Four Real IRA leaders found liable for Omagh bombing’, theguardian.com, 8 June 2009, | |
Negotiations cannot take place while innocents are being threatened Governments cannot negotiate while innocent civilians are being threatened by illegitimate violence. The state is the only wielder of legitimate violence in the form of the police and military that are needed to keep order and defend the state's citizens. To negotiate with terrorists is to provide them with legitimacy making violence an accepted way of achieving political aims. Before legitimacy is granted upon the terrorist group they must first give up their weapons and renounce violence. By taking such a position the state ensures that no lives will be taken during the political process. | |
Simply because a terrorist group has broken ceasefires numerous times does not mean that the next attempt will get nowhere – in ETA’s case the current ceasefire is holding. [1] We should also remember that not every time the terrorist group breaks a ceasefire it has been result of actions by the terrorist group – the state can also be the one that is walking away from talks. Ultimately there needs to be trust on both sides, to the terrorists the state seems as untrustworthy as the terrorists do to the state. [1] ‘Spain and ETA Always around’, The Economist, 17 August 2013, | |
There is no question that violence can sometimes achieve its aims but each individual campaign is different and is responded to in different ways thus for example a terrorist group that achieves minimal aims through violence cannot be used as a model by a group whose aims present an existential threat to the state. Thus for example the IRA achieved devolution after years of bombings but this does not them mean that the Real IRA was ever going to be successful in obtain a complete break with the UK. | |
There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community. [1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. [2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood. [3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.” [4] Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system. [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009 [2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009 [3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009 [4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007 | |
Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money Earmarks usually represent expensive programs of little worth to the American people. As the main means of pork barrel politics, earmarks are typically vanity projects with little economic benefit. Examples include the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (a $400 million project to connect an island community of just 50 people to the mainland), [1] $1 million for shuttle buses at Western Kentucky University, [2] and a grant of $300 000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Hawaii. [3] Worse, a recent Harvard Business School study found that states which received the most federal spending via earmarks from well-connected Congressmen actually suffered economically as a result, because the federal money crowded out private investment and distorted the local jobs market. [4] [1] Volpe, Paul, ‘Politifact: ‘Bridge’ Going Nowhere Before Palin Killed It’, 2008 [2] WKU News, ‘Funding secured for 2 more projects’, 2009 [3] Mendoza, Jim, ‘McCain criticizes Voyaging Society earmark’, 2010 [4] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011 | |
What erodes trust in Congress is the endless squabbling between parties who put their own partisan advantage over the national interest, not the lobbying of individual representatives and senators on behalf of their constituents. Politicians erode trust by loudly arguing that government is the problem. [1] Earmarks are in fact important in linking Congress to citizens, as they produce concrete benefits at a local level that can be associated with the activities of elected officials. This increases trust and helps to legitimise the wider activities of the federal government, including its taxes. This helps to explain why opinion polls find that most people trust their own Congressman to do the right thing, even as confidence in Congress as a whole sinks to record lows. [2] [1] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009 [2] Reich, Robert, ‘House of Ill-Repute: It’s Time to Ban Earmarks”, 2006 | |
Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice Earmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set objective criteria and organise competitive bidding processes for specific projects. Earmarks avoid this merit-based approach and instead channel money to specific projects according to how well-connected their Congressional representatives are. [1] Congressmen on the key spending committees, especially the Appropriations Committees, are best placed to channel pork back to their districts. It has been found that earmark spending rises between 40-50% in a state if one of its Senators becomes Chair of a top-three committee. [2] [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [2] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011 | |
Abolishing earmarks will save money Scrapping earmarks will save billions of dollars and contribute to reducing the appalling US budget deficit. Earmarks totalled about $16 billion of the 2009-10 budget, [1] unnecessary spending which should be cut in the interests of both present and future US taxpayers. Earmarks can be a large amount of a department’s budget, in 2005 the Office of Naval Research derived a quarter of its budget through earmarks. [2] Granted, removing earmarks alone will not be sufficient to eliminate the budget deficit and get rid of wasteful government spending, but earmarks are the obvious place to start. Until these most egregious examples of waste are tackled, it will not be possible to move on to cut bigger spending programs. [1] Kane, Paul, ‘Congressional earmarks worth nearly $16 billion’, 2010 [2] Charging RINO, ‘The Problem with Earmarks’, 2006 | |
Scrapping earmarks won’t save money, it’s just a distraction from the real challenge the government faces. As Earmarks are just a way of describing a government funded program [1] they do not represent additional government spending, they simply appropriate small amounts of it (less than 0.5% of the whole US budget, and only 1.5% of discretionary spending) for specific projects. [2] If the earmarks were not there, the money would still be spent; its use would simply be decided by the executive branch rather than directed to a particular end by Congress. For this reason, ending the use of earmarks will do nothing to cut the deficit. If you were serious about doing that you would have to think about cutting entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, raising the pension age further, reducing military expenditure, and increasing taxes. [3] [1] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009 [2] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009 [3] Hoyer, Steny H., ‘’Pork’ doesn’t fatten budget’, 2009 | |
All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. It is right that those who are determining where money is going should be elected representatives rather than a bureaucrat or a simple formula. | |
Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a representative to ameliorate the adverse impact of a policy at a local level and allow necessary bills to be passed. [1] However, even if you think this is bad, eliminating earmarks will not get rid of undue influence on voting in Congress. Instead it will hand that power to the executive, with the White House being able to offer incentives to wavering Congressmen to get them to vote for its programs in the form of promises about increased spending on projects in their state or district. [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006 | |
Earmarks erode trust in the government The use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in order to aggrandise themselves and ensure re-election. Second, it assumes that the answer to every local problem or issue is for the federal government to raise yet more tax revenue and bestow it from on high because Washington-knows-best. It is a symbol that makes it hard to resist spending both for politicians and their constituents. [1] [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ | |
Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership The ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska. [1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation. [1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009 | |
Earmarks may represent relatively small sums in themselves, but they act as a “gateway drug” to more profligate spending. By giving individual Congressmen the gratification of directing small amounts of taxpayers’ money to their own advantage, it makes it more likely they won’t say no later when major new spending proposals like Obamacare are put up for a vote. An addiction to earmarks also reinforces the Washington assumption that more government spending and intervention is always the answer. | |
The power of the purse was given to congress in order to keep taxation down, and therefore spending as well. Unnecessary spending on earmarks is therefore opposed to the founding fathers intentions. [1] [1] ThisNation.com, ‘Congressional Power’ | |
Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process The use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years. [1] [2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well as a certification obligation that they declare that neither they nor their family will benefit from the requested appropriation. Earmarks are thus a “nonbureaucratic, transparent system of rapid-response grants for pressing local concerns”, something which is genuinely useful. [3] There however could be further reforms such as having committees authorize all spending and banning last minute vote buying. [4] The attention given to earmarks by the media and campaigning groups means that requests now receive far more scrutiny than they did in the past so we can be sure that campaigners and the press will make sure what they do is benefiting their constituency. [5] [1] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007 [2] Marlowe, Howard, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2008 [3] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009 [4] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009 [5] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009 | |
Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss There is very little chance of Congress ever being willing to give up on having earmarks for their constituency’s. If the ban is voluntary many will not comply and if the ban is mandatory it will need congress to agree to it in the first place. Even those who voice opposition to earmarks make use of the system so it would never pass. [1] [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009 | |
Earmarks help to create congressional stability In a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media attention a Congressmen rightly receives back home, perks of office such as large staffs and generous travel expenses, redistricting, and the ability of an incumbent to call upon an existing network of volunteers and donors to support their re-election bid. In any case, earmarks are only a tiny share of overall spending, and donations from local interest groups are usually heavily outweighed by both individual contributions and those from national organisations. Their money goes to candidates who share their ideological position and who they feel will vote to support the major legislative and budget initiatives they favour. | |
Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch The ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent. [1] There are plenty of examples of US administrations spending money wastefully, [2] and others of Congress forcing them to commit money to worthwhile programs – both the improved body armour for troops and the Predator drone program originated as earmarks. As it is difficult to determine what is waste and what is not the books should be opened to scrutiny letting the public decide rather than there being an outright ban. [3] [1] Rockwell, Lew, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2008 [2] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009 [3] Los Angeles Times, ‘Earmark games in Washington’, 2009 | |
A ban is perfectly possible and Congress has come close already, for example with the house banning earmarks to for profit companies. [1] [1] Kane, Paul, ‘House bans earmarks to for-profit companies’, 2010 | |
Earmarks are part of the power of the purse Earmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century. [1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriation to particular spending areas. Directing federal funds to individual projects at a local level is an important part of this; [2] indeed many Congressmen such as Rahm Emanuel consider it their duty for which they can be held accountable by voters. [3] It is part of having several layers of accountability and representation at the federal level, congressmen for local interests, Senators for states and the President for the whole country. [4] The unconstitutional alternative is for Congress to cede this power entirely to the executive branch. [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006 [2] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009 [3] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007 [4] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009 | |
Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired, [1] which the Congressman can point to as an argument for their re-election, especially if they have seniority and a place on a major spending committee. [2] They may also make it easier for incumbents to raise large campaign contributions from grateful companies and industry associations, in 2007 people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million. [3] These reasons help to explain why incumbent re-election rates in Congress are regularly above 90%, a worrying trend as it suggests there is limited democratic accountability. [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [2] Henke, John, ‘Why Earmarks are a Problem’, 2008 [3] Heath, David and Bernton, Hal, ‘$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted’, 2007 | |
Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks. [1] [2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption. [3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contributions in exchange for using earmarks to provide federal investment, subsidies, tariff protection and tax breaks for individual firms and industries is worrying. [4] [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009 [2] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [3] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [4] Lessig, Lawrence, ‘the wong in earmarks’, 2008 | |
Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011) | |
Coalition government is a good thing. Adversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which are forced to acknowledge a wide range of public opinion are less likely to introduce policies which victimise minorities or ride roughshod over public opinion for ideological reasons; for example, the poll tax in the UK, 1988-92. Empirically, countries with PR systems, such as Germany, show that great prosperity can result from the policies of such governments. | |
There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What is the point in voting for a platform if the party that is pledging to fulfil these promises is simply going to drop them as soon as the election is over and the negotiations begin? | |
PR produces fairer results First past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for. | |
As there are many different forms of proportional representation some of them will be fairer than others. Implementing AV for example may help sort out the problem of MPs not receiving a majority in their constituency as they will now need to receive 50% of the vote in order to be elected. Yet it will do nothing for the other two problems identified. Minority parties are still unlikely to get any seats and parties with their vote uniformly spread across the country will still be punished. AV in both cases still favours geographically centered parties and still favors the top two parties over any smaller one as the small parties will drop out as the ballots are counted. | |
If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats (BBC News, ‘SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East’). In almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party. This means if those who don’t vote all got out and voted the election could go any way, they could elect in a fringe party if voting together. So look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the country, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,(Electoral Calculus, 2010) with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.(Wells, 2010) However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.(Vote 2011, 2011) | |
PR increases political engagement which benefits society. PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005, p5-6) | |
Safe seats will be reduced. All political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority’s votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011) | |
On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented. The whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords) | |
A lot of successful countries use PR, so clearly it doesn’t lead to instability. In particular coalitions don’t always mean weak government. For example, Germany uses PR and has coalitions, yet is one of the strongest economies in the world and a significant power within Europe. Furthermore, Canada, India and the UK use FPTP and all have had coalitions. The UK coalition has so far proven to be both strong and radical. Michael Portillo, a former Conservative Minister of Defence has argued "They have been more radical on deficit reduction than say Margaret Thatcher was, but on top of doing that very difficult fiscal adjustment, they are also reformed schools, health, welfare, and pensions - areas where Margaret Thatcher didn't care to tackle."(Today, 2011) The assumption that Proportional Representation leads to coalition also needs to be examined. Australia has for decades had strong single party government under the Alternative Vote. | |
PR creates an unfair balance of power. Coalition government is actually unfair, as small parties with only a few percent of support nationally can hold the balance of power. This can result in them being able to force through unpopular or sectarian policies with no national mandate as a price for their support in parliament; for example, the Dutch coalition lost its majority in 2011, meaning it may have to rely on the support of the SGP, a very small conservative Christian party that does not even allow women to be members (Financial Times, ‘Dutch Coalition loses Senate majority). Particularly when there is only one potential small party that could be a coalition partner for the biggest party(s) that small party potentially holds a lot more power than their number of seats in parliament would imply. When either of the main parties could form a government the small party can negotiate with both to get the best deal possible. And once in government they can threaten to walk out if they do not get their way on the issues that matter to them. | |
Extremist parties will rise under PR. A democracy means that everybody’s view should be valued equally. However much some people might dislike one party, other people still have the right to vote for them. If extremist parties do gain seats, then it shows the government needs to do more to address concerns. Moreover there are plenty of ways to avoid this problem in a proportional system, for example the German model of setting a lower bar that needs to be crossed before a party can have any representation in parliament. This would show that it is a party that can attract sufficient support to be worthy of representing those views in parliament. | |
The link between constituencies and Members of Parliament is important. Most PR systems would result in a break between the constituency and parliament. It is important that there is a single MP that represents a particular area. Having constituencies means that every citizen feels that they have a personal representative in parliament. Much of the work of an MP is constituency business, resolving problems encountered by constituents and raising the particular concerns of their geographical area with the government. The importance of this link can be shown in the difference in feeling towards individual’s own representative and the parliament as a whole. In 2010 there was a dissatisfaction in parliament as a whole of 38% whereas only 16% were dissatisfied with the job of their own MP.(Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 7, p.29, p.88) | |
PR decreases political engagement. PR results in less engagement in politics as voters do not get what they voted for – instead post-election deals between the parties create coalitions which do not feel bound by manifesto promises. In order to create coalitions there is a need for parties to be flexible on their manifestos especially where they contradict each other. As elections seldom result in all the parties in a governing coalition leaving power, in practice accountability is blurred and voters feel alienated from the political process. In addition, many PR systems are very complex and off-putting for voters. | |
PR leads to weaker government. Typically under PR, no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed often between four or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments, changing as parties leave or join the governing coalition, and frequent elections. Governments are unable to put a clear, positive legislative agenda in place over several years or act decisively in time of crisis. Compare this to the strong governing majorities produced by FPTP, such as the Conservatives in the 1980s in the UK, which allowed them to push through unpopular but necessary policies, such as tackling trade unions and reducing inflation. | |
A proportional electoral system is more likely to return seats for smaller parties. Amongst these smaller parties, it is likely that we will find parties on either extreme of the left-right spectrum. The British National Party campaigned for PR for this reason (Channel 4 Fact Check, ‘Would AV help or hinder the BNP?’). Potentially even more extreme parties, such as the English Defence League, could get members of parliament under some proportional systems. It is not beneficial to the country to have extremist groups like this in parliament. | |
Junior partners are by definition junior. It is the biggist party in the coalition that gets the top job; President or Prime Minister while the minor party has to make do with much more junior roles – the Foreign Ministry has been popular in Germany. In the UK Conservative-Liberal democrat coalition the senior partner the conservatives hold all the big offices: Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Office and Home Office. Even if they have to compromise on some issues it is the senior partner that is setting the government agenda. | |
In a corrupt system the military is likely to be corrupt too. It will have its own sectional interest; getting as much funds for itself, or hyping possible threats. The military interest can often lead to far worse things than corruption – such as wars. 1 In countries where the military is powerful it is likely to have large private interests too; in Egypt the military's holdings in the economy is estimated at anywhere from 5 to 60% of GDP though the military itself says its revenue from its private businesses is only 1% this is still a large interest. 2 1 Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991 2 Hauslohner, Abigail, 'Egypt's 'Military Inc' expands its control of the economy', Guardian Weekly, 18 March 2014, | |
A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption Democracy does not mean that a country is not corrupt, or that the political leadership is not corrupt. There are many countries where democratic elections stand side by side with a large amount of corruption; Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq countries that have recently had elections following western intervention are ranked 175, 172, and 171 out of 177 on the corruption perceptions index. Even countries with long established democracies can be perceived as being corrupt, India is 94th. 1 If the political class is incapable of reforming itself it may be necessary for another actor to do it for them. There have been several coups in which the military has taken power in order to reform the political system before handing over to a civilian government at elections; Turkey in 1960, Portugal in 1974, and the relatively recent coup in Bangladesh in 2007. 2 1 Transparency International, 'Corruptions Perceptions Index 2013', 2 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, , p.5 | |
A military government may well be as riven by factionalism and division as the system which it replaces. The main interests of the military is often simply to maintain or increase the position of the military, this makes it likely there will be disagreement on other issues including over how quickly to return to democratic government. The military will often opt to return to barracks rather than have such splits become too deep “Military regimes thus contain the seeds of their own destruction” as there is almost bound to be a split into factions at some point when governing a country. 1 1 Geddes, Barbara, 'What do we know about democratization after twenty years?', Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.2, 1999, pp.115-144, , p.131 | |
Necessary to restore peace to the country The clearest, and most common, reason for the military stepping in is to restore peace to the country. When the stakes are so high, power through control of government, the ability to distribute resources, it is something well worth fighting for. The result can be that democracies become unstable and violent with election campaigns particular flashpoints. The runup to the Thai elections in 2014 shortly before the coup left 10 dead and 600 injured 1 with no sign of stability returning after the flawed elections General Prayuth Chan-ocha the head of the army said the coup was necessary “in order for the country to return to normality quickly, and for society to love and be at peace again.” 2 When there violence creating violence it is the military's role to step in the prevent such instability. 1 Wilkinson, Laura, 'Thailand elections: Violent clashes in Bangkok over disputed poll', The Independent, 2 February 2014, 2 Hodal, Kate, 'Coup needed for Thailand 'to love and be at peace again' – army chief', The Guardian, 23 May 2014, | |
In a country that is so polarised that there is violence at elections the chances are the military is not neutral. In Thailand the royalists had been calling for military intervention because they know it is unlikely they will win an election. A coup cannot therefore be considered to be likely to end violence; Egypt is a case in point as there have been more than 3,200 deaths in the 7 months after the coup against President Morsi. 1 1 'More than 3,200 Egyptians killed since coup', Middle East Monitor, 9 April 2014, | |
The argument that the military is restoring democracy from a democracy makes no sense. Only once a democracy has been turned into an autocracy can it be said to be restoring democracy. So long as the system is still democratic then there should be constitutional ways to replace an increasingly authoritarian government; elections, vote of no confidence, or the judiciary. | |
A neutral party Democracies can turn into an intractable conflict between two political parties with neither side ruling in their national interest but simply using power in an attempt to defeat the other side. Bangladesh is a good example of this as there are two main parties; the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Neither are willing to talk to the other, the competition has at times been violent and attempts to create neutral caretaker governments are scotched by one side or the other as occurred at the start of 2014. 1 The 2007 coup resulted in the arrests of the leaders of both parties along with a major anti corruption drive. 2 Unfortunately this did not prevent Bangladesh quickly falling into the same two party system with the same parties and leaders once civilian rule was restored. 1 Budhwar, Kailash 'Bangladesh elections: The 'battling begums'', Al Jazeera, 4 January 2014, 2 Voice of America, 'Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Arrested', voanews.com, 27 October 2009, | |
Restoring democracy A coup that is against an elected government that is however becoming increasingly anti democratic is justified. When an elected government is increasingly concentrating power in its own hands, and particularly if elections are postponed then it is necessary for the military to step in to ensure democracy continues to function. From 1991-2006 31 of 43 coups resulted in an election within five years so far from damaging democracy were often restoring it. 1 1 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, , p.2 | |
Whether or not the head of the army is the right man to run the country is immaterial as he will be passing on to another administration quickly. This will either be a temporary civilian administration in which top technocrats are brought in or it will be as a result of new elections. If a military man is still in power after an election, as with Sisi in Egypt, then they have come through the same test as a politician would have done. | |
Elections do not always return a government that has true popular support; the system may be gerrymandered so it is much easier for one party to win seats. Additionally in many democracies there is a large number of people who don't vote so even a party that is elected may not have a true mandate. If the abstaining majority want a different government should the military not respect their democratic wish? | |
A coup makes it more difficult to trust in democracy Military intervention damages trust in democracy even if the intent of the coup is to return to democratic rule as quickly as possible. There are two ways in which democracy is damaged. The first is that it undermines the point of majority rule if the military may just step in and take over if they don't like the result. Secondly if a democratic government is making a mess of ruling and the military steps in to clean things up then this may create an impression that they will do so again, so absolving politicians to clean up their own act. This may well be what happens in Thailand. Since the end of military rule in 1973 Thailand has now had seven coups; 1976, 77, 81, 86, 91, 2007 and 2014. 1 In the 2007 and 2014 coups the government being overthrown was very popular; in 2005 Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai party won 60.7% of the vote while in 2011 his sister won 48.41% if the military simply steps in after a few years of rule by a clearly elected majority then what is the point in voting? Already the middle class supporters of a coup argue that elections do not mean democracy to justify military intervention thus undermining the concept of democracy. 2 1 Winichakul, Thongchai, 'Toppling Democracy', Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol.38, No.1, February 2008, pp.11-37, , p.15 2 Ibid, p.27 | |
The army is not the best institution to run a country If the country is in trouble is the army the best placed to take over and manage the country better than it has been in the past? This may plausibly be true if the reason democracy is failing is a large scale insurgency or near civil war but in almost every other case it is not the best institution. The army is trained to fight not to govern. The generals who take over top positions are used to running a bureaucracy that has to respond to politicians, not one that has to respond to the people. Politicians may be corrupt, venal, or unpopular but at the least they are open about what they stand for. They have a manifesto and a clear ideology which if the people don't agree with they wont be voted for. This is not the case with generals; the chances are they have a bureaucratic desire to maintain the power and funding for the military but otherwise there is likely to be little known about their politics. Finally for those who are being overthrown the electorate has had a chance to investigate their policies, their past, to question their views and catch the candidate out when they are not consistent. The candidate came through an electoral test and media grilling. When there is a coup there is no such chance to determine if the coup leader is the right man for the job. | |
The response must be democratic It is never appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government which the people have chosen. The government is legitimised by being the choice of the people, a coup is by definition not legitimate in such a way. The response to a government that has lost the trust of the electorate, unable to prevent violence, or is corrupt, is to hold an election. In the worst case and an elected government is using its power as a government to manipulate any election then the responsibility is with the judiciary to convict a government which is responsible for such a | |
Military intervention is most likely to happen only when trust in democracy has already been damaged. In Thailand democracy was already distrusted due to corruption and vote buying, the military acted because of that distrust. When intervention is to clean up corruption and create greater separation of powers the coup may actually improve trust in democracy. | |
I am only one of thousands of voters who elect my MP so my vote is not going to help hold ‘my’ representative to account. In the UK the average number of voters in each constituency is 68,175 [1] and some have majorities of tens of thousands. In the US House of Representatives the figure is more than ten times this number at 710,767 [2] with so many other voters how will my attempt to hold them to account actually matter? [1] ‘Parliamentary constituencies’, parliament.uk [2] Burnett, Kristin D., ‘Congressional Apportionment’, 2010 Census Briefs, November 2011 | |
Hold politicians to account For the most part in countries with FPTP we don’t like our politicians. In the United States Congress has a job approval rate of 21% and it is often lower [1] while in the UK in 2009 only 1% were ‘very satisfied’ with MPs (total of 29% satisfied 44% dissatisfied). [2] Well elections are your chance to hold them to account by voting for someone else. Elected politicians are there to represent you but if you don’t vote your voice wont be heard and you wont be able to hold your representative to account for what they have done during their time in office. There are increasingly websites which will show you how your MP voted making it simple to find out if they are representing you as you would wish and so making it possible to decide how you will vote on the basis of your representative’s record rather than just their stated intentions at the time of the election. [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘U.S. Congress’ Approval Rating at 21% Ahead of Elections’, Gallup Politics, 24 October 2012 [2] ‘Satisfaction with Members of Parliament 1991-2009’, Ipsos MORI, 4 March 2010 , (NB satisfaction with own MP is always higher) | |
The idea that someone who has voted might be more entitled to complain about things is absurd. Yes they have shown how they want the government to run but the idea that their voice is heard on all these particular issues is patently silly. | |
Have your say Democracy allows you to have your say and it is important you take advantage of that. It is unusual that your particular vote will make an immense difference but just occasionally it might make all the difference. Barak Obama’s 2012 campaign is running an ad called 537 the ad says this is "the difference between what was and what could have been.” As it is the number of votes that won the Presidency for George W. Bush over Al Gore in Florida in 2000. “So this year if you're thinking that your vote doesn't count, that it won't matter, well, back then there were probably 537 people who felt the same way. Make your voice heard." [1] There will always be places where there are victories by such a small margin. Most of the time it will be known where these marginal contests are but if enough people who have not voted in the past vote previous votes or the pollsters may count for nothing. You never know it might be you who makes the difference, so go vote! [1] Rama, Padmananda, ‘Obama Campaign Invokes ‘537’ To Get Out The Vote’, NPR, 24 October 2012 | |
Civic duty Voting is a civic duty, just as paying taxes and jury service. As a citizen of your nation it is your duty to take thirty minutes out of your day every few years to go and vote in an election. This duty is not a very onerous one but it is an important one because the foundation of our government is that it is democratic, and how can it be democratic if the people won’t vote? If the government is to represent the people the people must vote for it. Some civic duties such as taxes are compulsory and while it is not the case that voting is compulsory in the UK and USA it is elsewhere for example Australia and Belgium. [1] That it is not compulsory is consistent with our freedoms so there is the possibility of making the active choice not to vote. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to use it. [1] ‘ Compulsory Voting’, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, updated 21 March 2012 also see our debate on compulsory voting | |
Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes. [1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012 | |
The chances of you being the one who matters in a marginal contest are infinitesimally small. First most elections are not won on narrow margins and second you are unlikely to be in the right place at the right time. The FPTP system means that very few votes actually matter like this unlike in a proportional system where almost every vote would have a very similar worth. | |
The question here then essentially lies in do we appreciate our democracy? Does voting every 5 years actually count as a democracy? Does the fact that we have a first past the post system represent our views as a democracy should? The history of voting and the ability of other around the world to vote really has very little bearing on whether we should vote. Voting for the one party, or an other, or none at all is not going to result in me not being able to vote in the future. If losing the vote becomes a real possibility in the future then we can be sure that many currently apathetic voters will turn out because such a vote really would matter. | |
No right to complain We all complain, whether it is about the lack of places for schools, higher university fees, trains not running on time, or about how we are being ripped off by the shops. In almost every case the things we may complain about can be influenced by the government either directly as with education policy or indirectly through taxation or regulation. Voting is your one chance to show what agenda you want to government to take; do you want more regulation or less, do you want tuition fees paid by the government or individuals? Of course not everything will be contested in every election but some will be. But next time you complain about something if it actually matters find a party that wants to do something about it and vote for them. | |
We don’t just vote for ourselves You are very lucky that you have the chance to vote to choose and influence your government. Most people throughout history have not had this chance; in the UK women only received the vote in 1918 and most men only received the right in the nineteenth century. [1] In the United States the timings were similar with freed slaves not voting until 1970 (even in 1940 only 3% of African Americans in the south were registered) and women not until 1919. [2] We should remember the sacrifices of all those who have fought for the right to vote. Moreover huge numbers of people live in countries where these rights have not yet been won – just think of the 1.3 billion people in China who have no input into the change in the leadership, the Politburo Standing Committee, every ten years. [3] As voting has not been an automatic right throughout history you need to vote not just for yourself but for your children and their children in order to ensure that they have the benefit of growing up in a democracy such as the one you live in. [1] ‘Chartists Key dates’, parliament.uk [2] ‘ Timeline: Voting Rights Act’, American Civil Liberties Union [3] Li, Cheng, ‘The Battle for China’s Top Nine Leadership Posts’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1, pp.131-145, Winter 2012 | |
Yes politicians will sometimes break their promises or for some reason not be able to fulfil them. When the Liberal Democrats made their manifesto they did not expect to be in coalition with the Conservatives, with two incompatible manifestos some things were going to have to be dropped. Equally sometimes the party in power will find they can’t get through the changes they want. The point of voting when events might overtake a manifesto is that the party’s ideology will tell you how they are likely to react – a libertarian in 10 Downing Street would have let the banks go bust or a communist would have nationalised them. Many could have anticipated that a Labour government would engage in some kind of bail out to save savers and the system. By having voted for the Labour party voters were saying they wanted a slightly left of centre response to events. | |
This is nearly always not actually a reason not to vote as because in almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party this means if everyone who does not vote did as you will do and all get out and vote the vote could go any way, even a fringe party could be elected if the non-voters vote together. To illustrate lets take a look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the UK, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote, [1] with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009. [2] However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat. [3] [1] Electoral Calculus, Majority Sorted Seats [2] Wells, Anthony, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, UKPollingReport, 2010 [3] ‘Vote 2011 Scotland elections, Kirkcaldy’, BBC News, 11 May 2011 | |
Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me Political parties are not about issues, they are either about ideologies or are purely about trying to triangulate on enough issues so that they can get into power. With relatively few parties able to get representation in the Parliament how can I be sure that my views on issues will be represented. If I want isolationism then who should I vote for in the US election? Both candidates say they want similar policies which are not at all isolationist. [1] Often there is little choice; in the US there are only two real options, the democrats and the republicans, [2] while in the UK all three main parties occupy very similar ground in the centre. [3] The problem is similar if I am interested in multiple issues but no party has a similar portfolio of views. [1] Helling, Alex, ‘The debate for the rest of the world’, idebate.org, 23 October 2012 [2] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012 [3] Parker, George, and Pickard, Jim, ‘Centre prize: why UK political parties look more and more the same’, Financial Times, 4 March 2008 | |
Not voting is voicing an opinion that is as important as any vote In both the UK and the US non voters are the biggest block in the country. Governments are routinely voted in with only 30% of the eligible voters – and once it is counted compared against the total population it becomes lower still. We should therefore not assume that these people are all not trying to tell us anything rather they are pointing out that they know how little their vote counts so see no point in casting it. In the United States only 32% of voters agree that only having two parties is good. The non-voters could well therefore be telling us that there needs to be a radical change in the system before it is worth their while voting – ‘you make our vote count and we will begin voting again’. [1] [1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012 | |
Politicians will simply ignore how we vote Even if I do vote who is to say that politicians will actually listen to what I say. A lot of government policy is responding to events, no one who voted for Tony Blair in 2005 voted for bail outs of banks in 2008 by what was then a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who had not even faced the electorate. Moreover political parties do not seem to feel that they are tied to their own manifestos. In the United States Obama promised to close Guantanamo yet it is still open. [1] In the UK the Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto they would not raise tuition fees for UK Universities yet this is exactly what they did when they got into government. [2] [1] Negrin, Matt, ‘Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises’, ABC News, 3 July 2012, also follow our Securing Liberty blog for updates on Guantanamo Bay and other civil liberties issues: [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Senior Lib Dems apologise over tuition fees pledge’, BBC News, 20 September 2012 | |
My vote does not count In safe seats, indeed right across the country there will be millions of votes that will not count when everything is added up because of our first past the post system. [1] Essentially the system means that all the votes that are cast for those who are not the winning candidate do not count at all. In a safe seat there is no way a single vote is going to help overturn some of the immense majorities the party in power has, they could put a monkey for election in these seats and it would still get in. [1] In the UK take a look at the voter power index to see how worthwhile or otherwise your vote is | |
We can never be sure what these apathetic voters are saying because they have not said it – some might want a change in the electoral system, or might rouse themselves to vote if one of the options becomes extreme but this may not be the case. In the UK voters rejected the option of changing the electoral system to the alternative vote [1] which would have been more representative so making their voice matter more in future elections. [2] [1] Hawkins, Ross, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote’, BBC News, 7 May 2011 [2] Jones, Charlotte R., ‘This House would adopt the alternative vote’, Debatabase, 2011 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.