Fire in the Field
The benefits and dangers of elections.
Our elections are like controlled burns. We start a fire to protect against a larger fire. Families, organizations, governments face choices. Decisions must be reached. Groups and individuals line up on different sides. They see themselves as potential winners and losers, depending on what decision is made. The choice of government leaders is such a decision as is the resultant difference in policies.
If the choice is made by armed revolution or civil war, many people die, wealth is squandered and many opportunities are lost. A sane person, I think, would look for alternatives.
Electoral democracy is such an alternative. It is an attempt to make a peaceful, and temporary, choice between leaders or policies. That is, recognizing that decisions must be made if we are to move on, we have set up a rule-based process for “counting heads,” and we agree beforehand, before the votes are counted, to accept the results. We do this so that we can get on with our normal lives and not live in a warzone.
It’s a technique of conflict resolution. The results are not ideal for the “losers.” But they are acceptable, because they are not permanent. It is just for an agreed upon period of time (until the next election). And the organized sides can continue to work toward winning the next time.
In the meanwhile, we continue living together in an imperfect society.
But we should never forget that fire is fire. A controlled burn is a dangerous way to control a larger blaze. Elections likewise are a dangerous way to limit human conflict. It is a way of suppressing conflict by creating a controlled conflict. I.e , electoral democracy is by its nature a form of conflict. It is an invitation to pick sides. And then to engage in what feels, looks and sounds like a fight.
Partisan elections feed the fire of our hopes, dreams and fears. A democratic government needs firewalls to contain its dangers—escalation of violent rhetoric and action at the base and overreach and reckless policy at the top. Raw passion on the one hand and extreme over-confidence on the other. And always there is the fear that the losing side will not accept the outcome. (Which is, after all, the purpose of the whole process.)
A controlled fire is still a fire with all the potential to set a larger blaze. We surely do not live in a fireproof world. Kindling on all sides. And always some who pray for a “cleansing fire.”
Fortunately, electoral democracy has worked in the past. There are strong reasons why this is so. We are usually wise enough to see that in the long run we will all at times be winners as well as losers. It is said that Ben Franklin at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention reflected on a long life over which he had lost and won many political battles. He said he now realized that he was not always right. Speaking of the finished work of the convention he said, “On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility….”
And we should carry with us the understanding that today’s enemy is very likely tomorrow’s ally—on some issues we will be opposed to each other and on others we will be aligned. This is one of the oldest observations of modern political science. Look up “cross-cutting cleavages.”
In a world as complex as ours, we have many interests, shared with different allies, and pursued simultaneously.
The danger is when we commit to one conflict, a single issue perhaps and fight for total victory without moderation or wisdom.
And the world burns.