Wednesday, August 05, 2009

More Incumbency

Baha'i Incumbency, Revisited Once More


By John Taylor; 2009 Aug 05, Kamal 04, 166 BE


When I last wrote about incumbency in Baha'i administration I got more comments from Badi' Blog readers than anything else for a long time. This is a popular topic. So today, I plunge in once more. But first:


A Non-Baha'i Columnist Discusses the Democratic Model of Baha'u'llah


This summer I have been writing about democratic reform while steadfastly avoiding any mention of my prime inspiration, the Baha'i Faith. I have done that enough in previous years. However one non-Baha'i columnist and blogger, Brian Ashmankas in the U.S.A., has been doing it for me. His third and latest article is at:


Proportional Representation: Pros and Cons; August 2, http://www.examiner.com/x-16804-Worcester-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m8d2-Proportional-Representation-Pros-and-Cons


Here he writes that, "A comment has been made on one of my articles regarding a third take on democracy, distinct from both the Baha'i-based system that I suggested and the current system we use in Massachusetts." He goes on to describe his former favourite ways of democratic reform before discovering the Baha'i model: party list, proportional representation and multi-member districts, some of which are used in Europe. He correctly points out that these types make democracy even more dependent upon the contentious party system than it already is.


"My greatest concern with (suggested alternatives to gerrymandering) is the power it places in the hands of political parties. It is the parties that select the candidates and who usually select the order in which they will receive seats. The party also sets the campaign issues and organizes the campaign.  The candidates become merely tools of the party rather than individuals. Gone would be the grassroots outsider fighting to put new ideas on the table."


As our blogger perceptively points out, the Baha'i electoral system is determinedly free of either parties or partisan thinking. There are infinite advantages to the Baha'i avoidance of campaigning. Although we Baha'is should probably point out that this is a religion, not a political system, his praise for Baha'u'llah's Order is highly perceptive and a welcome break from all the press we have been getting about the persecution of Baha'is in Iran. He writes:


"It also concerns me that it doesn't address the problems arising from campaigning the way the Baha'i system does. As long as campaigns remain, deception, bribery (mostly in the form of campaign donations), and influence peddling will remain as well as the election of those who seek power rather than those who can be trusted with it."


At the same time, we should also point out that the Guardian did consider proportional representation to be a basic part of the democratic element in Baha'i Administration.


"Resting on the broad base of organized local communities, themselves pillars sustaining the institution which must be regarded as the apex of the Baha'i Administrative Order, these Assemblies are elected, according to the principle of proportional representation, by delegates representative of Baha'i local communities assembled at Convention during the period of the Ridvan Festival; are possessed of the necessary authority to enable them to insure the harmonious and efficient development of Baha'i activity within their respective spheres; are freed from all direct responsibility for their policies and decisions to their electorates; are charged with the sacred duty of consulting the views, of inviting the recommendations and of securing the confidence and cooperation of the delegates and of acquainting them with their plans, problems and actions; and are supported by the resources of national funds to which all ranks of the faithful are urged to contribute." (Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 332-333)


Although Shoghi Effendi uses the term "proportional representation" here, he probably means something closer to the technical fact that delegates are elected in districts that are calculated according to numbers of electors. This might be termed "voting according to population" rather than proportional representation, since as he goes on to point out, the bodies elected are not directly responsible to those who voted them in -- in other words, they are leaders, not representatives of the "will of the people," as Rousseau conceived it and as many non-Baha'i democracies actually apply it. Baha'u'llah in His letter to Queen Victoria made it emphatically clear that anyone elected to office has a prime responsibility not to the people who voted him or her into office but rather to God and all humanity. You might call that "disproportionate representation," since God and the entire human race are disproportionately greater than any number of electors.


As I have often pointed out, this principle of representation by population applies only in electing the convention that elects the National Spiritual Assembly. On the international level it definitely does not; the Universal House of Justice is elected by many NSA's that represent hundreds of believers while the NSA of India (and, if it were allowed, the NSA of Iran) represent millions of Baha'is.


This lack of due proportion at some levels could conceivably be adjusted in future by the House of Justice. Last time I read the UHJ's constitution I noticed something spectacular in the last paragraph. I had just read an article about the extremely long, expensive, traumatic, divisive and ultimately failed attempts that Canada went through in the 1980's and 90's in order to make relatively minor changes to its newly adopted constitution. The constitution stipulated unanimous votes among all MMP's in all ten provincial parliaments. That was a big order and proved impossible when just one MPP opted out. So I really pricked up my ears when I noticed that the UHJ can make a change to its constitution simply by a majority vote among its own members. They do not even have to be unanimous (though I am told that in practice they do wait until all of them agree upon a decision) among themselves, and they need not seek approval of anybody outside their own numbers, as every do all other democratic constitutions in the world.


Nonetheless, the unique and interesting thing about Baha'i voting is not the basic fact that it tries to keep the voting proportional to the number of voters. Every democracy at least aims at that, though changes are all but impossible because the area is, pretty much by definition, politicized.


What truly is unique is that it all but invents what might be called "meta-democracy." We vote in not only people who perform administrative duties, we also vote in voters. That truly is a brilliant innovation. It means that my vote at the regional convention is only twice removed from the voters of the UHJ, and nobody votes for anybody that they do not know by direct experience, preferably face-to-face -- as opposed to public image or professed ideas. I have been spending this whole summer exploring some of the implications of this for future governance.


Another virtue of Baha'u'llah's teaching is that it is a religion, and, along with science and education, it is designed to serve as equipoise to some of the excesses of politics and political thinking. The net effect of His Teaching, then, is to "de-politicize" the motives of everybody touched by it, both voters and officials voted in. Baha'u'llah quite literally does not mention the word "politics" in any of His writings. He delegated all discussion of the relation of the Faith to politics to His son, Abdu'l-Baha. Policy and actions are not valuable in and of themselves, their value is mostly in the divine confirmations they attract. In the Lawh-i-Dunya He warns His followers:


"O people of God! Do not busy yourselves in your own concerns; let your thoughts be fixed upon that which will rehabilitate the fortunes of mankind and sanctify the hearts and souls of men. This can best be achieved through pure and holy deeds, through a virtuous life and a goodly behavior." (Tablets, 86)


I could go on about such wonderful traits, but I want today to address a comment that a less-than-informed Baha'i made to the following comment our blogger makes about incumbency (the tendency to be elected over and over) in Baha'i Administration. Ashmankas's first point is about various suggested alternatives to "first past the post" elections.


"A final concern I have is that incumbents have a significant advantage because the long-time seat holders would remain at the top of the party list, immune from being tossed out for questionable decisions because they would remain within the group of guaranteed seats. Of course, this is no different than in our system, where incumbents are challenged very rarely and replaced even more rarely."


Ashmankas continues, turning to incumbency in the Baha'i system.


"It has also been mentioned in some of the comments I have received that the Baha'i system also favors incumbents. I certainly admit that this is a major concern with the system that I have laid out in the past. The obvious solution is term limits.  Although this would certainly help in any of the three systems discussed, it seems to me to be too artificial."


A reader by the name of Ed Price, probably a Baha'i, rather hastily replied, saying:


"I noted your comment that the Baha'i electoral system favors incumbents. While it is true that the Baha'i community currently often tends to elect incumbents, it would be an error in my opinion to suggest that the system "favors" incumbents. It is important to keep in mind that, since there is no nominating or campaigning - in other words, no partisanship and no office-seeking behavior - in Baha'i elections, the meaning of incumbency differs greatly from other elections where individuals seek to get themselves elected. The Baha'i system, by its prohibition of any electioneering activity and by the fact that positions are usually unpaid, is actually not a "friendly" environment for personal ambition. Office holders thus view being elected as being a spiritual call to service and not a vehicle for status or power. For these reasons it would not be correct to say the system favors incumbency due to any inherent bias in the system, nor would there be any advantage to limiting terms either."


If this is coming from a Baha'i I find it rather strange that he does not notice that there are far more restrictive "term limits" in the Baha'i electoral process than any other in the world. How many democratic countries can you name that have annual elections? How many leaders are elected for a period of only one year? Any country that tried to hold an election campaign every year would exhaust itself and probably go bankrupt to boot. The reason that we can do this is that we kill several birds with one stone, so to speak. God and the voters "sacralize" their votes. An election is how we start off our holiest festival, Ridvan, which we celebrate during 12 days every single year. In effect, voting for Baha'is is what Christians would call a sacrament, it is how we celebrate Baha'u'llah's declaration and second exile. By voting in an atmosphere charged by God -- rather than heated debate -- and by doing so smoothly, often and regularly, the commonwealth of Baha'u'llah in fact highly disfavours incumbency.


However, at the same time voters can vote however they blessed-well please. The point is that they reflect the divine Will, not Rousseau's reified "will of the people." At the same time, in the Aqdas Baha'u'llah makes a point of formally removing power from kings and putting it into the hands of the people. An election is strictly between the voter and God, and nobody else. As the Guardian points out:


"Shoghi Effendi has never said that the members of the National Assembly have to be renewed partially every year. The important thing is that they should be properly elected. It would be nice if there should be new members elected, for new blood always adds to the energy of the group and will keep up their spirit. But this depends entirely upon the will of the delegates as represented in the result of their voting." (Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, letter dated October 1932)


At the same time, on at least one occasion Shoghi Effendi went out of his way to "recommend" that German NSA voters choose a certain individual that he thought especially worthy of the office. By doing so, he recognized a problem in the infancy of the faith that may go away as we mature (having just housetrained a puppy, I am very aware of this possibility).


To the blogger, I made the following comment about incumbency, referring to something I just learned this summer from press accounts of the present, rather notorious Canadian parliament:


"There is nothing wrong with incumbency. As a rule, experienced people are better at a job than inexperienced ones. That is no less true in a democracy. Canada is in a situation where the ruling party has the only experienced people, and voters keep voting in so many new members of parliament that the turnover rate in opposition parties is very high. The ruling party ends up mocking the embarrassing mistakes of the neophytes in opposition, most of whom do not even have a college education, and parliament ends up a name-calling free-for-all that gives democracy a bad name."


Responding more generally to the columnist's analysis itself, I commented:


"I have been blogging on just this subject of Baha'i elections and their value as a model for democracy all summer, starting around the first of July. My blog is badiblog.blogspot.com. Although I am a Baha'i myself, I have to admit that the idea of not actively campaigning and seeking out a post is not unique to us. As an article in the NY Times for the fourth of July pointed out, it was regarded as beneath the dignity of a politician to seek votes for most of U.S. history. Only recently has this become the rule.  This is an extremely interesting topic and I agree that you are on to something."


Most intriguingly, the columnist Ashmankas ends his article with the following request for input.


"I would like to finish by asking for suggestions on how we can solve the problem created by the massive advantage given to incumbents that seems to exist in any democratic system.  I will consider these comments and delve deeper into the problem of incumbency and possible solutions at a later date."


Readers of the Badi Blog can respond straight to him, or direct their comments to me if they want. Myself, as I mentioned, I do not think that incumbency is necessarily a bad thing. Everything in moderation. Perhaps politicians are like surgeons. A study found that the sweet point of surgical expertise is seven years after graduation. At that time the guy or gal has lots of real world experience, but still has not forgotten all that he or she learned in school -- nor has what they learned become wholly obsolete yet.


But then again, there is no school for politicians, is there? How can there be a sweet point for them? So-called "political science," like most academic so-called "disciplines," is not a praxis. It therefore cannot be a science as long as there is no such thing as "clinical political science," including apprenticeships, as there is in medicine. That is another problem with democracy that is rooted in education. I have been wrestling with that this summer too.



John Taylor

email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/

::

No comments: