Today's politicians have not changed all that much since Marie Antoinette (Source: here)
Marie Antoinette is alleged to have uttered the words “Let them eat cake”, when she was told Parisians were starving due to bread shortages. Her words became symbolic of the arrogance, ineptitude, and corruption of France’s rulers in the days leading up to the French Revolution. With hindsight, it is obvious the French revolution was both inevitable and entirely justified. We will never again allow ourselves to be ruled by useless charlatans. Or will we?
_____
The truth is that politics has not changed all that much since Marie Antoinette. We still rank politicians at the very bottom rung in terms of trust. We still dislike them intensely. We believe they lie and cheat.
The five least trusted professions (Source: here)
Yet, curiously, we continue to allow our elected representatives, especially those in the highest echelons of public office, to operate with shocking levels of impunity. Why do we give politicians so much leeway, when we - rightly - regard them as base charlatans?
The answer is we feel powerless to change to the system. We want a better politics, a politics in which elected officials work for us rather than for themselves or for lobby groups. But we have no idea how to bring it about. We don’t even know what a better politics looks like.
Until now. In this post, I offer my exciting and, as far as I know, innovative ideas for how to improve democratic accountability. At first sight, some of my proposals may seem radical, but I believe they could soon become the norm. Tomorrow’s politics can be unrecognisable from the shambles we have today. Those, who witness the coming transformation of politics, will, as they look back on our time, shake their heads with incredulity that we accepted the status quo for so long. Exactly how we think when we cast our thoughts back to pre-revolutionary France and Marie Antoinette. How could we ever have allowed our politicians to operate with so much responsibility, yet so little accountability?
_____
Today’s politicians have enormous power. They manage about half of the economy’s annual output through the government budget, a far bigger slice than Louis XVI and his lot ever controlled. In addition, they have powers to change laws, which means they can literally alter every other aspect of our lives, if they wish. It stands to reason that we - the voters - should be able to hold them to account.
Yet, modern democracies are stuck with a deeply dysfunctional system for holding politicians to account, one that has barely changed since democracy was first introduced. Basically, we require them to seek re-election every few years. That’s it!
Moreover, the act of voting is little more than an expression of wish. Ballot papers are not linked to specific election commitments, so they do not bind politicians to their promises in any way whatsoever. Unsurprisingly, politicians have become highly adept at exploiting the leeway afforded by our lackadaisical electoral system to their own advantage. For one, lying has become routine in practically all election campaigns.
In the recent General Election campaign in the United Kingdom, both Labour and the Conservatives went out of their way to promise – live on television – that they would not increase taxes. Yet, every serious economist in Britain said that taxes had to rise due to the terrible state of the public finances. And when Labour won and took over the reins of power they raised taxes. Politicians openly lie to our faces. And there is nothing we can do about it, because nothing they say in their election campaigns is in any way binding. Nor do the shenanigans end after the politicians take office. Once elected, they waste no time ensuring all attention goes away from their erstwhile promises. This, too, they can do with perfect impunity.
_____
Economists in the 17th Century English insurance industry coined a term to describe the techniques used by politicians to escape accountability: Moral hazard. Moral hazard describes the lies people tell to get lower premiums. For example, they may fail to disclose their smoking habits, failure to exercise, and poor diet in order to pay less.
Moral hazard is all-pervasive in politics. A time-honoured example of political moral hazard is when politicians blame their failures to deliver on election promises on exogenous shocks, such as geopolitics, or the vagaries of the business cycle.
“Inflation is not caused by excessive government spending”, they say, “it is the war in Ukraine”.
“The economy is not sick because of Brexit”, they say, “but due to a slowdown in China and Germany”.
Scapegoating is another type of moral hazard widely practiced by politicians to escape accountability. Vulnerable groups are never to blame for the underlying problems in the economy, such as declining productivity growth, rising inequality, and crumbling infrastructure. Yet, it is usually the most vulnerable at whom politicians point their fingers to explain society's ills: single mothers, benefits claimants, Muslims, or asylum seekers.
“The NHS is not failing due to government orchestrated spending cuts”, they say, “but due to excessive immigration”.
Peak moral hazard occurs when politicians hook up with the media organisations to control the news agenda. By constantly feeding the media’s insatiable demand for “new news”, politicians divert attention away from their previous commitments and particularly difficult issues they hope will go away or at least not blow up on their watch. In short, moral hazard enables politicians to neglect their duties.
And that is precisely the point. By severing the link between campaign promises and what politicians actually deliver in office, moral hazard frees politicians to pursue their own private agendas, to work on their re-election, or to enrich themselves by serving the interests of generous lobbyists. Voters are left without effective representation. Unhappy. And increasingly disillusioned with democracy, because seemingly nothing can be done to end this deplorable state of affairs.
_____
But it gets worse. Moral hazard leads to another serious problem, which has also been given a name by economists, namely adverse selection. Adverse selection is process in which political charlatans gradually take the place of capable elected officials. When the political system fails to punish dishonesty, it actually gives an advantage to those politicians, who are willing to make use of dishonesty to gain an edge. Needless to say, this disadvantages politicians who insist on being honest. Similarly, when the political system does not offer specific rewards to capable and assiduous politicians, the system ends up favouring the incapable and the lazy politicians, who – by dint of not wasting time on actually working for voters – have more time to serve their own interests.
_____
The twin problems of political moral hazard and adverse selection tend to worsen over time, because bad politicians beget bad outcomes. Ultimately the economy comes under threat from neglect of reforms and myopic and ineffective policy decisions. And a worse economy only further encourages political populism. Over time, cycles of over-promise and under-delivery against the backdrop of economic stagnation produce more and more disillusioned voters, who eventually start looking for a strongman in the hope that an all-powerful leader can finally fix things. But history shows that authoritarian leaders not only put democracy itself at risk, they also end up inflicting enormous economic and humanitarians costs on society.
Britain has been stuck in a vicious cycle like this since the Brexit vote of 2016. Some European countries now appear to be entering into a similar cycle, judging by the rise of the populist Right. And America is certain to follow suit following the election of Donald Trump for the second time (see here).
_____
It is imperative that we begin to address the problem of our dysfunctional democratic accountability. But what can be done? How can we make politicians do better jobs for us The key to a solution is to realise that moral hazard only thrives, when there are large discrepancies between what voters can hear and see about their politicians and what their politicians actually do. Better information about what politicians do is therefore a critical part of any solution. Sharper incentives for politicians to actually act in the interest of voters is also essential. And, lastly, politicians must be held personally accountable for their performances. They cannot be allowed to hide behind general government weakness. There must be no ‘I was just taking orders’ in politics.
A new system of democratic accountability must ensure that the risks arising from politicians' failings are borne by politicians, not by the voters. This is the only way that individual politicians can be made more sensitive to their successes or failures with respect to election commitments. The good news is that provision of information and incentive reform can generate dramatic improvements in political culture. The bad news is that politicians will almost certainly fight tooth and nail to oppose such reforms, because the current system allows them to have their cake and eat it too.
_____
To get around the likely resistance to reform from politicians, we must proceed one step at a time. The first step should be to put in place a system for naming and shaming politicians. A civic organisation – call it the Voter Empowerment Network (VEN) – should be formed to act as the eyes and ears and the memory of the electorate. VEN collects information on politicians’ election promises and tracks their performances with respect to those promises in the post-election period. VEN publishes performance league tables on a regular basis with the best performing politicians at the top and the worst performing politicians at the bottom. The league tables are sent to the press, pro-democracy advocates, voter representatives, the business community, the international community, and politicians themselves.
Ahead of elections, VEN publishes a flagship report with league tables to remind voters exactly what their MPs promised at the last election, and what, if anything, they delivered while in office. Such league tables do two things. First, they enable voters to see how their MPs have performed, both in relation to their promises and compared to other MPs. Has my MP delivered? Or has he or she been a total disgrace? Second, league tables increase political competition, because aspiring politicians can use performance rankings to attack useless incumbents. Everyone wins. Except useless politicians.
VEN must obviously be politically neutral and independent of the government. It must act on behalf of all voters, never individual political parties. VEN should be funded directly from concerned citizens (except those running for office), pro-democracy organisations, and businesses without links to government.
_____
The second step towards a better politics can begin as soon as the benefits of naming and shaming politicians start to be sink in among voters. In step two, democratic accountability is placed at the heart of the institutional framework of government through the establishment of a formal Ombudsman for Democratic Accountability (ODA). Remarkably, so far no one has – as far as I am aware – proposed an Ombudsman with a specific mandate to look after the general interest of voters vis-à-vis politicians.
ODA must be separate from the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government to ensure its independence, with statutory funding. It’s mandate will be similar to VEN, but with additional powers to investigate complaints, issue recommendations, and even initiate legal action against elected representatives. Selection of a Chief Ombudsman should be transparent and independent to strengthen credibility.
_____
When ODA is up and running, step three can begin: Root and branch modernisation of entire system of democratic accountability. Here, the big idea is to transform the act of voting from a non-binding expression of wish to an actual contractual relationship between voters and elected officials, with rewards to politicians who perform and punishments for those who do not. Rewards can take the form of cash bonuses, pension contributions, or other types of remuneration, while punishments can be fines, or, in particularly gratuitous cases of breach of trust, prison sentences. ODA will be vested with powers to issue bonuses and punishments, with the associated costs borne by tax payers.
Under the new contractual relationship between politicians and voters, the politicians are free to choose their own election commitments, but the promises become legally binding the moment they are elected. Election commitments are listed on ballots alongside the names and party affiliations each candidate. The technology for such a contract-based voting system already exists (see here). Open Transaction Network (OTN) technologies, such as the Beckn Protocol, can easily be adapted to handle contract-voting. Beckn operates on all major electronic devices, including simple mobile phones, regardless of network or platform.
_____
Legally binding election commitments will completely transform politics as we know it. For one, political culture will change radically. Over-promising and under-delivering will be replaced by far more realistic election commitments and much greater focus on post-election delivery. Politicians will have strong incentives to cooperate with each other, because pre-election alliances lead to lower delivery risk in the post-election period.
Voters will also understand that election alliances are more likely to deliver results, so politics overall should become far less confrontational. Blame-shifting, the exploitation of exogenous shocks and other manipulative practices designed to get out of election commitments will entirely disappear, because the new incentive system provides zero leeway for elected officials to escape commitments through moral hazard.
It follows that we will also 'discover' an entirely new type of politician. The prospect of large bonuses in politics – similar in what senior bankers make – will encourage highly competent risk-loving technocrats to run for office on ambitious but achievable platforms. On the other hand, the current crop of immoral charlatan politicians will choose either not to run, or, if they run, risk jail.
Still, there will be plenty of variation among politicians, because politicians will tend to specialise in specific areas of professional expertise. Hence, we should see more technocratic and competent government.
Society as a whole will benefit greatly. Greater democratic accountability reduces voter apathy and raises participation rates. Government waste and white elephant projects drop off sharply. The economy also becomes more stable, because politicians no longer use exogenous shocks as ‘get out of jail’ cards. Politicians who fear exogenous shocks have no choice but to tone down their election promises accordingly.
Finally, it will be possible to design voting contracts such that myopic policies are discouraged, for example, by using bonuses with future vesting. Similarly, clawback clauses can be used to disincentivise politicians from entering into international commitments solely for the purpose of announcement effects, without follow up.
_____
To conclude, let us return to the big picture. Wealthy democracies have made great strides in bringing prosperity to their societies. They have entrenched rule of law, constructed powerful and relatively effective institutions to deliver public services, and made massive investments in infrastructure. These achievements have been pivotal in facilitating the emergence of diverse, competitive, and dynamic private sectors that produce the wealth upon which high standards of living now rest.
Given all these advances, it is deeply incongruous that the system of political accountability in Western democracies has barely evolved since democracy began. Politics is holding us back. It need not be so. Change is possible. In this note, I have described how information and reform of political incentives can radically improve how democracy works. The process of reform can begin without the involvement of politicians. The technology to make it happen exists. The reforms do not in any way infringe on democratic principles or voters’ rights. We are no longer powerless. We have a road map for change. The upside from better democratic accountability is enormous.
Let us guillotine our Marie Antoinette-style politics.
The End
Comments