Those who have been following these pages will know that I have been writing about elections in both BC and Afghanistan.  At first glance, it would seem preposterous to most readers to suggest fundamental similarities between the two.  After all, our province is an advanced industrial economy with modern sophisticated social and political institutions, and modern cultural standards and norms that ensure relative honest government and reliable politics.   Afghanistan on the other hand is a nation of warlords, Islamic fundamentalism, corruption, weak and ineffective government, compliant media, and low levels of education, with the result that democracy struggles to gain a foothold.

But in both, recent elections raise some of the same kinds of issues about election practices, and in both questions arise about the effectiveness of rules and institutions in governing election practices.

In Afghanistan it now looks the Karzai will be re-elected.  Sadly it even looks possible that this will come in the first round with a little over 50% of the votes.  But if not the first round, such a result is almost a certainty in the second round.  In BC the Campbell Liberals were re-elected with a little over 50% of the legislative seats.  So in both cases a modest electoral margin will result in the return to power of existing governments.  In both cases given the structure of their governments both will have absolute power over their term of office.  Many will agree with me that in Karzia’s case, this is an outrage.   But how much more legitimate is the BC result than the Afghan one?

Both results have been achieved through electoral dishonesty of one kind or another.  In the case of Karzai, he has relied upon warlords and wealthy business interests to run a campaign of deceit and dishonesty.  None of the issues raised by a new and articulate set of political opponents were given much attention by a weak media and civil society sector accustomed to toeing the government line.  In BC, Campbell ran a campaign almost totally rooted in deceit about the state of BC and his plans if elected, with the financial and electoral support of powerful interests including large business.  The obvious dishonesty of the campaign was largely unchallenged by the media and civil society and continues so right up until the present.  In both cases there is the appearance of a general culture of subservience by these important components of society (although in the case of civil society one should not ignore the impact of election law prohibiting challenges to government claims, virtually all of which were lies of omission or commission).

But the elections are over.  The real question in both cases is whether the institutions of society will prove to be sufficiently robust to thwart the intentions of the formally elected governments to proceed as if the elections were legitimate.  It is hard to be optimistic in either case, even though in both cases the basic facts are clear.  Both winners pursued election practices that involved provable deceit and fraud at a level hardly seen in a modern democracy and both refuse to acknowledge what they did.  Both used the powers of official office and government to give a large advantage to themselves.  And both have systematically lied and withheld information about the true state of affairs.   And it appears that both will get away with it.

In Afghanistan, the media and civil society are sorrowfully underdeveloped.  They lack the capacity and independence necessary to act as an effective watch dog and check on the government.  The only hope is that the international community might call Karzai to account and force corrective action.

In the case of BC, there has been an absence of a sufficiently robust and independent media and civil society to play the role of watch dog and check on a government so necessary if elections are to work as a means of selecting who will govern.   The main tool that makes democracy work is the election.  And the main force at work in an election is criticism and the possible thwarting through challenge of a government that has crossed the line of dishonesty.  In modern societies this is mostly done by the media and the institutions of civil society.  But in the case of BC, it very much appears that attempts to call the government to account will largely be left to individual citizens and opposition political parties, just as it was in the election itself.  History proves that this is never sufficient on its own.  Robust and active media and civil society institutions are essential if the government is to be held to the truth and to act accordingly.

It is tempting to ask why in both cases there is a lack of sufficiently vigorous and robust media and civil society needed to make the essential processes of democracy work.  In the case of Afghanistan, the answer is fairly obvious.  Years of violence, corruption and underdevelopment have removed the oxygen and laid waste to the landscape of democracy.  In the case of BC, the answers are much more difficult.  The province has been observed by outsiders as having a culture of politics more akin to contact sports than to vigorous contests between clashing ideas and personalities.  This type of politics was common in most provinces a few generations back, but the others have all moved on to a more advanced state of debate and truth telling.  The BC media itself has seemingly lost interest in acting as a meaningful check on government, for reasons that are less than obvious.  The dominance of the Aspers as owners may explain some of it, although more disturbing is that reporters appear to have lost their edge and perhaps even their interest.  Thus it has been possible for the Premier to maintain a continuing stream of fictions and denials without any fear of effective challenge and pursuit by a truth seeking pack of relentless reporters.  The half life of any telling criticism of the government in the media is down to a few short hours.  Whatever the explanation, the BC media has lost its way as a robust check on government’s honesty.

BC civil society has been largely emasculated and discredited as well.  Unions, one of the traditional checks on government, attacked by media and academics alike over the years as special interests, no longer count as voices of ordinary citizens.  Universities have become defenders of conventional wisdom and the status quo.  Social and environmental organizations have, partially in pursuit of money but also in pursuit of credibility, fallen into a client state mentality.  Thus we had the spectacle of once powerful environmental leaders shilling for the government during the election.  And the business sector continues to see politics as class warfare and thus censors itself when it comes to criticizing a business friendly government.

All of these point to conditions found in third world societies.  But why should these conditions prevail in BC today.  After all, BC is not a third world society.    It is obviously deeply rooted in structural conditions.  But beyond that it is hard to understand.  We need to better understand how a government has so successfully made itself immune from searching criticism. Hopefully some of the vast resources devoted to the academic community will delve into this through time.

In the meantime, the situation does not bode well for BC citizens.  One thing we have learned is that successful societies and economies require honest and effective government.  Free and fair elections are an essential element of this.  Many of us have wrongly assumed that these are guaranteed by modern norms and standards.  One of our commonly held assumptions is that we are much more advanced then places like Afghanistan.  A closer look leaves one feeling uneasy about that claim.

It may be time to look to legislation to set minimum standards.  It might also be that recall, at best a blunt and inefficient tool of democracy, needs to be called upon.  In our current dire state, if recall were mobilized, it might be that the media and civil society would step up and join in, if only to be part of the spectacle.  But  that would be okay.  After all, democracy can’t be too choosy when it comes to allies in defence of honest elections.