ELECTION OVER
SomeSpoke
Of Zanufi
KationThatUrbanWent
ProgressiveThe RestHeldFastTo
NoWhere. *
After the election was over I got a circularized request by email for a comment on whether I thought the election was free and fair. There were three choices yes, no, maybe, and then why. My reflexive response was to click: Yes… Then I wondered about maybe and why.
And then I thought I would share my response with a wider audience, since I have no real idea who those people were: and whether anyone will actually read it… Or go into an archive to be read when it no longer matters… And so the “maybe”, kind of overwhelmed my original blog theme.
So here goes.
Was it free in the sense that all citizens who were eligible to vote were able to do so if they chose to? Yes in that sense it was free. Broadly in the most elementary way the process was slick and effective and we were in and out in moments.
Fairness is a far more abstract idea. It is outrageous to me, for instance, that having carried out a centuries long “Struggle” to be liberated and now; given an eligible population of some 36,000,000 liberated persons, only some 44% of us were inspired enough express an opinion. It is suggestive of covert exclusion. And Fairness or its absence has undoubtedly a role to play
Firstly: Some 10,000,000 eligible persons were intrinsically disenfranchised because there is no automatic voter registration system in existence. This, notwithstanding the existence of a digital revolution enabled verification of my ID registration, in a moment: at the gate to the voting station.
That is manifestly unfair and a disgraceful comment on the selfless sacrifices of those who died for freedom. For instance when I had to apply for an ID book at sixteen, i was automatically registered for military service as well, back in the evil dispossession days. Why is such a simple process not possible in a more technologically advanced era? Did someone choose to make it voluntary and complicated and inconvenient?
Equally of course a legitimate response would be that the ten million persons are all consenting adults; and should they choose not to register that is their right… However a flawed registration programme does not help… And as we move further into our democracy legitimate comparisons could start to be made with the past, when only established elites ran the show, and the economy stagnated as a result… as it is doing currently.
Secondly: One could equally argue that 48 contenders for power is a wonderful signal regarding freedom: and is therefore fair. Simultaneously however we are ignoring the fact that none of the 36,000,000 possible members of Parliament represented by the ‘eligible’ has the right, apparently, to stand as an independent candidate. **
This means that only people who belong to Parties can stand for election… And in fact; it is the Party that stands: not the citizen. And this is not only unfair but also, outrageous.
It also results in the absurdity of someone like [for instance] Irvin Jim [one of the 48] creating an illusory party called SRWP, whatever that means, on the pole outside my house… when a real Independent could tell us what he wanted to do. There were in fact Independent MP’s in the old days… and many were invaluably useful.
Thirdly: of course if there are to be dozens of contenders, then, in fairness, some mechanism that enables more effective communication with the voting public should be part of the system. Alternately, in reality those who have looted the most in the past; and have currently presented no credible idea of the way forward, can create a de Facto Oligopoly structure. Thereby blocking new entrants: especially any who may have better, or more practical ideas.
Finally and this is what fairness could potentially mean. The total votes “lost” to the system through spoilt ballots [a quarter of a million] and some 34 non-successful parties [about another quarter million] means some half a million people’s votes became meaningless in 2019 … Somehow that doesn’t seem “fair” other than from a most extreme, Libertarian viewpoint. And given that 47 of the 48 contenders were intrinsically socialist in viewpoint a Libertarian position seems anomalous.
In my fictional worlds that I create, I would have those seats ‘lost’ allocated as ‘seats’ to be filled won by randomly selected Independent citizens. These would be chosen by ballot to represent broadly a greater diversity of viewpoints.
If it was possible to select persons for military service with a ballot system when we were a primitive country technologically, there is no reason why such a system could not happen in our new hyperlinked world. They would, and should, by their very independence present different points of view to what often become meme driven actions by Parties… And do we need some 21st century thinking in a hurry.
So in conclusion I would say that the elections were modestly free and, within a range of constraints, also modestly fair.
*Xrappzi©.
A Xrappzi© is a motif verse form I’ve decided to adopt. It is a 22-syllable stanza in five lines that would otherwise be sometimes called a Cinquain. This 22 syllable format developed by Adelaide Crapsey in the nineteenth century uses the following syllable pattern for each line: 2,4,6,8,2. The name for the format: ‘Xrappzi’, is mine: in tribute to the lady. The X is pronounced as a guttural G
The idea of the Xrappzi is that it summarizes my idea about the blog subject, in 22 syllables, so you can rapidly choose to read further: or move on. From now on all my blogs will open with a Xrappzi.
** I understand there is a motion under way to have this possibly remedied by ConCourt.
Loves ya all