The Chaos of Democracy

Thoughts as an Election Approaches

The major political parties opened their campaigns for election recently – Labour on Saturday 2 September, National on Sunday 3 September.

Both campaign openings were the subject of some disruption by opponents of the parties. This seems to have attracted some attention, some surprise from Mainstream Media. There has been a narrative developing that the security of candidates on the hustings or at meetings may be compromised. Security advice for candidates has been made available from the Electoral Commission. In addition information is available about a range of measures that will be put in place to manage election disruptions. The full protocol can be found here.

The protocol for the management of electoral disruptions is directed to serious disruptive events such as a natural hazards, adverse weather conditions, riot or disorder, or act of terrorism or cyber incident, could cause “unforeseen or unavoidable disruptions.” These are defined in section 195 of the Electoral Act 1993 and are disruptions that are likely to prevent voters voting at a polling place or which (more generally) pose a risk to the proper conduct of an election.

In addition protocols have been published for the GCSB and the NZSIS in relation to the 2023 General Election.

The concern is that foreign interference and cyber security threats pose a risk to the 2020 General Election and the referendums (the General Election process). The concern of the intelligence community is directed to foreign interference in the electoral process. These concerns were recently the subject of Mainstream Media reports, as candidates have been warned of “foreign interference”.

It is indeed comforting to know that the integrity and reliability of our national election, and the conditions for New Zealanders to exercise their rights to freedom of political opinion and expression during the political process are to be protected and ensured.

At the same time one must wonder at the level of fear that is being put about by the Electoral Commission, the NZSIS, the ubiquitous Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), the Police, the National Cyber Security Center, CERT NZ (now folded in to the GCSB) along with the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The problem is that these warnings are generalised, oblique and non-specific. It would be helpful to know what to look out for or who is propagating information that is likely to disrupt the electoral process.

I recall many years ago coming across a collection of paintings by the Eighteenth Century artist William Hogarth which included four paintings collectively named “Humours of an Election”.

As I read the mounting media hysteria about the activities of disruptors at the campaign openings I recalled these paintings with some amusement.

The paintings are in many respects a satirical representation of the 1754 election of a member of Parliament in Oxfordshire and were completed in 1755. In those days a constituency elected two MPs. There was a property qualification for voters so only a minority could vote. But as the paintings illustrate that did not prevent participation by non-voters who played a vocal role either supporting or opposing the candidate. There was no secret ballot. Bribery and intimidation were common.

The parties contesting the Oxford seat were Whigs and Tories. The first painting shows a tavern dinner organised by the Whig candidate. The Tories can be seen through the window protesting and engaging in disruptive behaviour outside.

The Whig candidates are ingratiating themselves with their supporters and as is always the case with Hogarth’s work, there is a lot happening. One candidate is kissing a conventionally unattractive woman, while a girl tries to steal his ring; the other is listening to a drunken bore. At the other end of the table the mayor is collapsing from over indulgence in oysters, while the election agent is knocked out by a brick thrown through the window by the Tory mob. A banner with the words “Liberty and Loyalty” on it stands in the corner. The Tories also carry a banner with the word “Liberty” on it. It seems that “freedom” was a meme even then.

The second painting is entitled “Canvassing for Votes”. A Tory and a Whig both try to briber an innkeeper to secure his vote. The crowd outside the tavern is visible in the background. A peddler is being employed by another agent who is offering jewels and ribbons to the wives of voters. At the edges of the painting a soldier on the left and two sailors on the right symbolise uncorrupted patriotism. A woman sits on a decorative figurehead of a British lion looking at her bribes. The action in the background seems to suggest some form of confrontation.

The third painting is entitled “The Polling” . Once again, chaos seems to rule. Voters are shown declaring their support for the Whigs (orange) or Tories (blue). Agents from both sides are using unscrupulous tactics to increase their votes or challenge opposing voters. A Whig voter with a hook instead of his amputated hand is being challenged because he is placing his hook, rather than his hand, as legally prescribed, on the book as he swears to his voter identity.

Meanwhile, the Tories are bringing a mentally disabled man to vote. A dying man is being carried in behind him. In the background a woman in a carriage with a broken axle stands for Britannia. Her coachmen are gambling, ignoring the fact that the carriage is broken.

The final painting is entitled “Chairing the Member”. It is a riotous scene. A victorious Tory candidate is being carried on a chair in a traditional ceremony. He does not look too stable because one of his carriers has just been accidentally hit on the head by a flail carried by a Tory-supporting rural labourer who is attempting to fight off a Whig supporter (an old sailor with a bear). The Whig supporters can be seen wearing orange cockades.

A group of frightened pigs run across the scene in a reference to the story of the Gadarene swine. The Whig leaders watch from a nearby house. At the right two young chimney sweeps urinate on the bear. A black Briton, somewhat aghast, holds her passed-out mistress who is being given smelling salts by another attendant.

Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century elections were chaotic, riotous affairs. They involved people in the community who were known and because they had to appear in person there was plenty of opportunity for supporters to support and opponents to oppose – often violently. Fights would break out between the factions. Items would be thrown – vegetables if you were lucky, bricks, stones and rocks if not.

We have a different approach to elections now. Voting is more widely available. The ballot is secret. A vote may be cast early. Electoral bribery is far more structured as the respective parties make extravagant promises in the hope of wooing a few votes. But one thing remains and that is that an election is a contest and a highly charged and emotive one. This is the time when the hecklers emerge, some with clever repartee but otherwise insulting. Some of the hecklers are confrontational. Some are obstructive. And the candidate has to be able to handle this.

The rule in politics is simple. If you throw your hat in the ring expect to get it kicked around and don’t complain if the going gets tough.

Democracy is chaotic, contentious, confrontational, loud, argumentative and so it should be. I wonder how our current crop of candidates would fare in Hogarth’s day. At least these days it is words that are hurled rather than cabbages and rotten eggs.