Arrows’ Impossibility Theorem is a very interesting mathematical
result that has serious implications for preference aggregation – the act of capturing the choices of
the members of a group. To understand the implication of this theorem, we first
need to realise that there is more than one way to hold an election as evidenced by the diversity of electoral systems in different
institutions around the world.
The most common system that we in
Pakistan are familiar with is the one where each voter simply votes for their
most preferred choice and the person who gets the most votes wins. But other procedures may include
mechanisms wherein everyone ranks their preferences and assigns them a score – the winner then could possibly be
the person with the highest score. There are many possible variants on this
procedure, which is obviously attractive to third parties trying to
break into a two-party system.
There could also be procedures
wherein voters give their least preferred options and thus move towards an
outcome based on the elimination of everyone’s least
favoured outcome.
The interesting implication of
the existence of multiple aggregation mechanisms is that a group of people
could end up with completely different outcomes based solely on which election mechanism
is used.
So, which one is the best? That’s where the aforementioned
Impossibility Theorem steps in to deliver some bad news – there is none. Essentially, it states that if we want our
voting outcome to have certain basic (and fairly reasonably) characteristics,
there is no voting system that can deliver it to us. Whatever your voting
system, there will be some set of preferences that it will fail to capture.
Thus far, we have not spoken
about the impact of the structure of a government on voting outcomes but it
should be apparent that it is there. For example, due to the Electoral College
in the US, Donald Trump managed to win the election even though he got fewer
votes than Hillary Clinton. Similarly, in the recent elections in the UK due to
the parliamentary structure, the difference in vote share between the Conservatives
and Labour was a little over 2 percent, while the difference in seats was over
8 percent.
Furthermore, we have so far been
assuming that voters vote their conscience and do not vote tactically. This is
not always true. It is possible for voters to vote against their preferences
due to a multitude of reasons – most
obvious, perhaps, being the unlikelihood of their preferred candidate’s success.
Another thing we have not
accounted for is asymmetric information and uncertainty, wherein voters don’t know everything there is to know
about the candidates and even candidates are uncertain about the true state of
world affairs.
Given all of the above facts, one
thing is clear – the act of using elections
as a procedure for determining answers to important questions is far from
flawless. In fact, for a long time, many people in Pakistan have been using
arguments such as asymmetric information (in the shape of illiteracy of voters) as
an argument against democracy itself.
So, what is the big deal about
democracy? Why has democracy become a scale along which countries are measured?
Furthermore, why is it that First World countries consider it as one of their
most prized values with many arguing the existence of a link between economic
growth and prosperity, and democracy?
The answer lies in the fact that
there is much more to democracy than the ritual election of office holders. The
fundamental difference between a democracy and an autocracy or an oligarchy is
supposed to be the existence of institutions and laws guided by principles
rather than the whims and influence of an individual or special interest group.
Ideally, a democratic society is one which aims to enfranchise the public and
provide as level a playing field as possible. This essentially entails the
existence of a functioning system of law and order through effective policing
and courts. It also means providing access to education and other areas of
development so as not to be exclusionary.
Since the main purpose of
democracy is to act as a bulwark against the establishment of a ruling elite
that exploits its position for personal gain at the cost of society, the
establishment of a process of accountability of office holders is imperative.
And this is where we land
ourselves in trouble with the democratic system in Pakistan. The basic
questions that arise in our democratic setup go along the lines of whether
institutions start to function more rigidly on rules and principles so as to
serve the people under our democratic governments or whether they remain/become
tools to be exploited by a select few. If it is the latter, then the democratic
setup has little purpose.
Moving to our most recent
headline grabber. It appears that the Prime Minister is teetering on the verge
of disqualification because of financial corruption. Many educated and
principled people in the country see the case as an assault on the democratic
process. One needs to ask what exactly the democratic process entails. Is it
simply monarchy by election, or is there more to it?
A question one might ask is
whether, under the democratic process, the state institutions should have
carried out investigations into the misuse of public funds as soon as the
Panama Papers story broke? One might also ask if certain groups or individuals
in the ‘democratic’ government have taken hold of state
institutions and are exploiting them for the benefit of vested interests. One
might even ask whether the ‘democratic’ government is intentionally lying to
the public on certain issues, again for the betterment of a particular clique.
Even if we are to accept the
theory that there is indeed some grand conspiracy behind the Panama Papers case
where autocratic forces are targeting a democratically elected Nawaz Sharif, we
need to ask whether the confrontation is between a democratic force and
autocratic one, or whether it is simply between two opposing autocratic forces.
Thus, the arguments that Nawaz
Sharif should be allowed to continue to serve as Prime Minister despite his
alleged guilt, or that the process of investigation into accusations against
the Prime Minister should not be carried out so as to protect ‘democracy’ require that we protect democracy essentially by gutting
it. People making these arguments need to think about whether they are
demanding the protection of democracy, or simply the ritual of election-holding
– because there is a significant
difference. Do they want democracy or do they simply have a preference among
the autocrats?
At the very least, the situation
is troubling. Does one benefit democracy by demolishing notions of
accountability?
As a side note, let me also
address a tangentially related argument that always creeps up in these
discussions. On why it is that politicians are the targets of such
accountability drives and not the other cliques in the country that too have
their share of misdeeds. The answer is simply that in a democratic setup, that
is where the buck stops. If elected officials are genuinely concerned about the
survival of democracy in the country, they need to stop playing power politics
and develop non-partisan, independent institutions that can act against
powerful groups in the country. To do this, they need to ensure that there are
no skeletons in their closets that may come tumbling out the minute
these independent institutions take an interest in their affairs.
