If a One Party State Took Over, but Kept a Free Press, What Should the Citizenry Do?

Great Debates
1

Think Mexico c.1930-1995, not North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Burma. What is the appropriate citizen’s response to a rise in borderline tyranny via a one party state?

Here’s the purely hypothetical scenario. Assume we are dealing with a developed country with a tradition of free speech.

The ruling party holds majorities in the legislative branch, controls the executive and has appointed most judges. The press is free, but there exist a couple of state-sponsored broadcast outlets (direct control does not exist, but certain international media operations have a history of kowtowing to the more authoritarian party in power, be it Communist or whatever).

Elections are interesting in the Chinese sense. It’s a bicameral system: one house has competitive elections but is grossly misrepresentative of the population. In the other house, 5-10% of the seats are competitive: one party or another locks the others up. (There exists one mostly rural province not subject to these lockup rules.)

Although not unblemished, this post-industrial country generally had a strong human rights record in the past and received top ratings for its commitment to democracy.

Sorry for the melodramatic setting. There really is a point to all this.

What is the appropriate response by the citizenry if one party manages to win elections through the use of computerized voting equipment that has no paper trail so that ballots can’t be audited? Not all seats are controlled. But enough elections can be swung to maintain a lock on power. Let’s face it: this scenario is hardly implausible.

There are several options, once we assume that a one party state has been established.

I deplore violence. IMHO, prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. YMMV.

My contingency plan follows.

  1. Follow nonviolence while evils are sufferable. See above.

  2. Insofar as the latest election is concerned, roll over and accept the theft. But draw a hard line.

  3. If electoral irregularities are easily correctable with a technical fix, stay focused on that fix. Specifically, draw up Congressional resolution -without riders- that abolishes computerized voting that can’t be audited and institutes a 20 year moratorium on computerized voting that lacks a paper trail. Fully fund immediate retirement of all existing preposterous machinery that does not meet such guidelines. Direct your Congressional allies to draw up a narrow bill. Oh, and make sure the MIT group signs off on your plan; encourage their consultation. Keep the goals limited.

  4. Take care to appeal to fair minded and patriotic members of the ruling party.

  5. Take careful note of those who oppose or seek to undermine #3. We may as well take the opportunity to measure personal character and commitment to the commonwealth.

  6. Anticipate strategically timed national emergencies and military actions by the ruling faction and plan accordingly.

  7. Use the filibuster but also remember #6.

  8. Be prepared to mount a civil disobedience campaign. Keep it well focused initially, but consider a national strike. Do not reach for the national strike first. Remember #4. And #1.

2

Napoleon did this in France.
Everybody just stood in the street, cheered, & waved their flags for the Emperor.

3

And I suppose the glorious leader’s name is George W. Shrub?

4

It would never work;without a strong and vocal opposition, we would end up with a “core cadre” calling all the shots with no one to challenge them. They would consolidate power incremenally until there simply was no opposition at all. There would only be The Party and its apparatchiks. Corruption and gross incompetence would run rampant. There would be no redress or appeal. It would be a disaster.

There is a theory that goes like this:
The reason for a two or multi party system is to keep any one group from holding too much power for too long. Keep them so busy fighting against each other, that neither side gets entrenched enough to do too much damage.
This makes things less efficient, but the best model of efficiency (dictatorship) brings other things with it that are far worse than inefficiency.

The system we have now is not perfect, but we can and sometimes do get rid of the worst politicians. In a one party system, it would be impossible.

5

The other scenario is that one party just becomes so much more competant and popular that they are expected to win an election by default. I believe several SE Asian countries ran under this type of system for many years. you can still have a strong democratic tradition and freedom of press.

In that case, I think the scenario should be that the people act as the watchdog for the government and apply a far higher standard to their actions because they know how perilous such a sytem may be.

6

:o
My OP was as clear as mud. Sorry about that.

Diebold has sold touchscreen voting machines whose results cannot be meaningfully audited and can be easily hacked.

SDMB: Analysis shows touchscreen voting machines are faulty. What can we do?

There’s a simple fix to this: ban voting machines that leave no paper trail.

Rush Holt of NJ has introduced legislation to fix this which so far has gone nowhere.

Meanwhile, there are organizations planning to monitor the 2004 vote.

Unauditable voting technology presents the opportunity for systematic fraud and a Mexico-style rule-by-one-party. (Of course, the opposition is capable of cheating as well, though I suspect their abilities are somewhat limited.) If elections can be systematically stolen by one side (as opposed to sporadically stolen) then we have a one party state. What else can it be called?

What is the appropriate response to a stolen election of this type, after the fact?

7

Like in 2000, you mean, where everyone said of Florida, “never again”?

Why in the hell would the ruling party, which controls the legislature and benefitted by the “fixed” voting machines, agree to any reform? For God’s sake, look at Florida today, where Jeb & co. have assured that the election will be stolen again, and specifically forbidden recounts!

Plan accordingly? Care to give some examples?

8

Thanks for the feedback:

Hope not. Still, I can draw some distinctions. The Diebold problem has a simple fix: ban machines without paper trails. In contrast, it is in practice more of a challenge to reform election practices in Florida, or stop their spread to other states.

--------- Why in the hell would the ruling party, which controls the legislature and benefitted by the “fixed” voting machines, agree to any reform? For God’s sake, look at Florida today, where Jeb & co. have assured that the election will be stolen again, and specifically forbidden recounts!

  1. Shame in the face of transparent fraud (as opposed to the deniable kind).

  2. Pressure from their constituents in the face of a patently ludicrous technology.

  3. Pressure from the business wing in the face of a possible national strike.

  4. Willingness to avoid obstructionist tactics in the Senate.

------------ Plan accordingly? Care to give some examples?

Specifically, I meant that Democratic Senators should not make a unilateral pledge to filibuster everything. They will have to make allowances for National Security and avoiding government shutdowns.

More generally, since W will most definitely allow politics to affect the timetable of his war plans, good strategy involves anticipating such steps.