Why the political system fails us – and how to fix it
Why politics fails and what share of responsibility do citizens bear in a failed political system? These are the overarching questions that Ben Ansell, professor of comparative democratic institutions at the University of Oxford, tries to answer in his new book, “Why Politics Fails: The Five Traps of the Modern World & How to Escape Them.” In a discussion with Kathimerini, Professor Ansel points to the participatory nature of citizens as a key component in influencing political decisions, while he also explains the role of ideologies in the modern era, using Greece as an example.
The 21st century began with prosperity and security. Still, it was marked by wars, economic crises, and the Covid pandemic. Today we are witnessing the rise of the far right, anti-systemic voting, and Euroscepticism. Let’s rephrase your book title: “Why Modern Politics Fails or Failed.”
I think that the moment now is a harder moment for politics than the 1990s, maybe the early 2000s. I know for Greeks, the bad times probably started in 2008, and they didn’t stop after that. And I think there is a primary reason why all of our politics is more difficult and that is because in the wealthy countries of the world we have not had growth for 15 years. That is true in the United Kingdom, Italy and Greece, and it is mostly true in France and Germany. On the other hand, the growth has been pretty good in America, but they do not seem to be that much happier. There is a lot of academic research that argues that the rise of far-right political parties or populist movements is associated with the so-called “China Shock,” meaning the opening to trade with China that hits particular regions harder, which is associated with the housing crash, and it is just associated with having lower relative wages. So indeed, the challenges at the moment are particularly difficult.
How do you assess the volatility of the electorate?
I think we are going to get more volatile swings. For example, the left in Greece used to be represented by the political party PASOK, but for a decade the position of the left has been held by SYRIZA and they were clearly much further to the left than Greek left politics had been. And that is a result of the financial crisis. Similarly, the last 15 years of bad growth in the United Kingdom produced Jeremy Corbyn on the left and a Boris Johnson-style Conservative Party on the right, and we have had quite extreme and polarized politics in the UK too. Now then, what matters is how your elections work. And in the UK, the electoral system is worse because we have majoritarian elections. We do not have proportional representation. So that means only the Conservatives or the Labour Party ever rule and so you go back and forth like being on a roller coaster. I am sure Greeks are not enormously satisfied with their politics over the last few years, but I would say do not adopt our electoral system because that would make it worse.
You referred to the financial crisis that Greece has experienced, with the Left Party (SYRIZA) confronting the “systemic parties,” but in the end, proving to be equally systemic. Is Greece an example of the failure of the political system?
Greece over the last 15 years is an example that democratic politics at the national level can often struggle to get outcomes at the international level, and that is part of being in the European Union. For example, you can have a referendum to not agree with the European Union’s bailout package, and your referendum can be completely ignored. So that is a real frailty of democracy. That is not a Greek problem, but it is a problem of democracy within the European Union, and that is a challenge for the European Union. On the other hand, the Greek democracy has proven to be robust, because you have not ended up in a situation where Golden Dawn ended up dominating or you have not even been in a situation where SYRIZA was able to govern either in the way they wanted to or in the long run. Now I am sure lots of Greeks are unhappy with that situation, but it does seem to me that the establishment in Greece has held up the institutions quite well under the most challenging conditions. So, I would view that as a success of Greek democracy.
In the past, ideologies used to dominate. In modern times, is ideology a key component of government decisions, or has it now taken a back seat with the economic engine motivating voters and governments?
I think the change in the way people think came about in the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, I think the change in the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, was the “Death Note” for socialism inspired by the Marxist tradition. So, there are really no left-wing parties in Europe that follow that same lineage from the Second International and early socialism. So those ideological differences went away and populism is not really an ideology either. I mean, there is no ideology, not even as coherent as fascism was. And that is probably good. Therefore, I do think most voters are doing what we political scientists would call “pocketbook voting,” they vote for their wallet. Sadly, voters do not have a grand view of how society should be organized, but maybe that is a more realistic and also a kind of direct way for voters to respond. The problem with ideology – you can see this sort in Venezuela right now – is that if you really believe in an ideology, then you are willing to tolerate very bad outcomes. So, in my view, non-ideological politics is probably better for the average citizen.
Do voters bear a share of the responsibility for the failure of the political system?
I make the argument in the book that all of us should take some responsibility for politics, that if democracy is about self-government, meaning ruling ourselves, then we cannot just outsource that to politicians or technology. We are the key components and we also have to recognize our own flaws and our own self-interest, rather than blaming politicians for every bad outcome.
What are the ingredients of a successful political system?
I think it is important that people are able to express their differences by voting for parties that I might not like. For example, in the United Kingdom, for a long time, we argued that the two-party system is great because it locks out the far right and the far left. Well, it did, and then it created other problems. In my view, it would be better to have a system that allows people to vote on how they feel about things, to acknowledge that disagreement, but then have, as best as we can, a way that once we have got all those differences to make decisions in, as in an agreeable fashion or as agreeable as it can be. And that means that coalitions can be good things. Also, it is important to have counterweights. That might be the courts or that might be the media, or it might be other parts of government, so to prevent any government or leader from sort of becoming an elected dictator.
If a political system fails, can it regain the trust of citizens?
That is a great question, and a very hard one. I think it is important for politicians to be accountable for their failures and for their successes. There is nothing worse than not being able to throw out a series of people who have failed. And I think ultimately, if you were to get back the trust of voters, they have to see a connection between how they vote and the policies that politicians suggest. So, you know, trust is a dialectic process. It is a relationship between the politician and the voter. The only way we are going to get that back is by voters feeling that politicians have listened and produced things and that they can throw them out if they fail.
