This will be a series of three posts regarding my thoughts on reestablishing trust in our society. After a brief introduction, in this post, we will look at the American history of Government “of,” “for,” and “by” the White Male. We’ll touch on the lost opportunities of creating a Multi-cultural society in America, including a look at America’s societal shortcomings. I’ll introduce the Bahá’í Model; and the Additional Changes Needed.

     Re-establishing Trust, part 2 will consider the status quo and the needed changes to the Media, America’s reaction to Racial Unity, Gender Equality and Justice.

     Re-establishing Trust, part 3 will reflect on a conversation between Bahá’u’lláh, the founder of the Bahá’í Faith and Oxford Professor Edward G. Browne along with several paragraphs of the musings of Shoghi Effendi, the great-grandson of Bahá’u’lláh and the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith regarding the future World Order of Bahá’u’lláh.

Introduction:

In December I wrote a post entitled “Lack of Trust” that some of you may have read. The other day I stepped out my front door, just to see what the day “felt like,” you know how it is with our mutual Covid-19 isolation. When I did I saw my next door neighbor out working on gardening and landscaping his front yard, so I called out to him and we had an enjoyable twenty minute conversation of “What’s New,” etc.

     We got to talking about government. Now I need to digress a moment and say that my neighbor is a medical doctor, is well-read and has a strong social awareness and conscience.

     He confided in me that he chose to not cast a vote for President in this latest election because he felt that he (and everyone) wasn’t given a proper choice between candidates. He expressed the view that both candidates, though their styles were radically different, were controlled by the powers of the system such as large Pharma, large tech companies, big carbon-based energy companies, large banks, etc. This might sound like he’s a radical of some bent but truthfully he’s just an average citizen who has come to realize that those who weld power do so courtesy of their wealth and the influence that it provides them.

     I’ve been thinking about that conversation and wondering what exactly we would need to reestablish trust between government and individual citizens. As a point of fact, I might broaden that question and ask what we need to reestablish trust amongst us all. Government is, after all, organization. So, the organization or hierarchy of a church is also a government that has suffered from a breakdown of trust between the hierarchy and the members. Let’s think of national government first, though we may not actually be able to separate government which is a set of institutions and run by people, from the people that it serves.

“Government of the White Males, for White Males, by White Males”:

     At the beginning of our country we were a people that understood government to mean English constitutional monarchy and English Common Law. These elements of government, like nearly every other government in the world, were dominated by White males. When our Founding Fathers set out to form “a more perfect union” they copied and then refined what they already knew.

     The reins of government stayed in the hands of White males. It was the White power structure that decided to displace Native American tribes from their historical homelands to land of a much poorer quality and then it was still taken from them in so many places ending in reservations meant to consolidate them which was a military policy of convenience.  It was also the White male power structure that enslaved Africans who were captured and shipped from Africa to the North American continent to work the fields of the Southern States. Thus, well off and rich White growers maintained and increased their personal wealth on the backs of enslaved people.

     It was also the White power structure that kept women without a voice in elections, local to national until they finally had to demonstrate to petition for rights that White males already had and often times took for granted.

     I could go on with abuses of the White power structure by detailing offenses like the overthrow of the Queen of Hawaii, or the subjugation of the governments of Central America so that Americans could enjoy inexpensive bananas and other fruits. American Marines have also been dispatched to Lebanon, the Philippines, and Cuba to wage war and overthrow governments.

A Multicultural Society and power structure:

     What I’d like to do however, is to consider a different path and that is the path of multiculturalism. From its very beginnings English colonists had an opportunity to create a multicultural society with the many Native American nations, but didn’t. Once again White males had an opportunity to not enslave Africans, or, after slavery ended, to work with African-Americans and Native Americans to develop a multicultural society, but they didn’t.

     Since the early 1800’s the United States became the vaulted “City on a Hill” the place to come for freedom and well-being. And, since World War II people from all over the globe have come here to escape tyranny and to engage in a lifestyle in which they can raise themselves up economically, and can provide their children a high quality education, etc.

The Reaction of White Males to Multiculturalism

     Regrettably, too many White males are seeing the influx of non-White peoples as a personal threat to them and are fearing that their White power structure is ending. As a result, they believe that they must fight ever more violently to preserve their special role in society. It is regrettable because their unique position in society is slipping away from them, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t have a unique place in society, it just means that their role will be different. If the actions of the White power structure has created distrust in our governmental institutions then it is obvious that what we need is a multicultural power structure that is representative of the ethnic makeup of our national society. Unfortunately, just this isn’t enough.

America’s Shortcomings:

America has a multicultural society but lacks the experience of a multicultural power structure. If we move to a new multicultural government, that government won’t be tested, in other words it won’t have any history as to whether it acts in a nonpartial way. It might take several centuries to establish a multicultural track record before there is confidence in our government.

     It’s obvious that what we need is one or more examples of working multicultural power structures to guide us in changing into a functioning multicultural government and society.

     Such an example needs to have a track record, a history of smooth functioning. A functioning example proves that such a system is not just theoretical but is an actual working system that can be adopted and adapted to our national needs. Such a system could be a heavily revised version of our present governmental system, but could as easily be something very different.

The Bahá’í Model:    

I would suggest we look towards the Bahá’í model as an example. It is a democratic system that guarantees everyone has the right to vote in fair elections. It has a Federal system that recognizes national, regional and local issues, and also has an international federal structure to serve the interests of the global community, while respecting and preserving national interests. Each level of government is respected and has its rights guaranteed.

Additional Changes Needed:

     This, however, isn’t an end to the changes that we need. We need to get money out of government. The most obvious of reforms on this is to reverse the Supreme Court’s “Citizen’s United” decision that gives corporations the legal rights of individuals regarding giving political contributions to candidates running for office. There is a difference, however, in the rights of individual human beings and corporations.

     As an individual I can give $2,700 to every candidate that I want to support in an election cycle. So, let’s say that I want to support a candidate for mayor for my hometown. I can give her $2,700 during the primary campaign. If she continues running in the general election I can give her another $2,700 because that is a separate election. If she ties an opponent in the general election and there has to be a runoff election I can give her a final $2,700 for that election. Meanwhile, I can do the same for every candidate I wish to support, such as City Council, County Judge, School Board members, etc.

     However, a corporation can give an opponent of my mayoral candidate $20,000 or $4,000,000. That mayoral candidate can buy many more ads on radio, TV and in the newspaper. That candidate can also buy 1,000’s of bottles of water in a drought, or donate $10,000 to the local food bank and get on TV for the donation. That candidate can hire more staff to knock on doors and register people to vote or hire busses to bus people to the polls on election day. It is obvious that the unlimited donations influence the election and get that candidate an unfair advantage over all others. This is referred to as “buying” the election. We could say that “Citizen’s United” is only the symptom whereas the problem is a much more problematic and deeply held issue – the way political campaigns raise money, or even if, they can accept donations.

     Many say that political campaigns should be funded by tax-payers in the form of equal government support for every candidate. It is just so easy to accept a huge political contribution from someone who asks for your help in getting some bill passed or support in blocking some bill from the Congressional floor. Many others will say that contributing to a candidates political aspirations is the only way to “get his ear” and possibly influence his opinion and vote. Even if that is true, then over time the candidate clearly sees that it is to his advantage to listen to the desires of his constituents, particularly those who fund his bid for re-election.

     To a great degree it isn’t democracy that suffers from a failure to represent the people, more appropriately it is capitalism that creates a government for the rich, rather than government for the people.

     We do need a change, but it’s not just on defunding political contributions, it runs much deeper than that. Have you ever thought that it’s sort of strange to allow some people to “run” for office, to the exclusion of others.? If the cost of running an election campaign is so high it is obvious that as voters we will have a very limited choice. Many elections have only two people running for a position, and it is often that someone runs “Unopposed” meaning that we only have that one choice, which, of course is no “choice” at all.

     Theoretically, wouldn’t it be better to have some system in which the voter has more of a choice. There are other countries that have different systems of government that provide more choice. I’m not even talking about different grand-systems like democracy verses kingship. I’m talking about other democracies like Germany or Israel or India. Each have a slightly different form of democracy but they’re all democracies.

     Many democracies have a pluralistic form of elections. Instead of our system in which we demand that one person gets more than 50% of the vote to win the election, and then have runoff elections if no one wins that 50+%, these countries open the election field to multiple people and then say that the person winning the most votes wins. In fact, here in the United States we are now seeing a variation of this in States where they support “Rank Choice” voting.

     Another thought for us to consider is whether or not we could construct a system in which no one “runs” for office. Instead, a position that is needed is listed on the ballot and every voter has the right to “write-in” their choice. Many states already allow write-in positions on ballots in a limited way.

     Instead of having candidates “run” for office, all adults of voting age in a defined area would be expected to be actively aware of the affairs of that area. For instance, in my hometown of Corpus Christi the city could be organized as a single unit, or could be divided into sectors. In either case, the system calls for all adults to be active in the city’s affairs and issues or at least knowledgeable about those issues, and when it comes time to vote for representatives, such as a City Council, all voting adults would vote for those individuals that they thought would serve the city well. This would mean there would be many people receiving votes for these positions.

     If we decided to make changes such as I’ve outlined, we could keep our basic structure of government but change certain laws and principles to improve our existing system. The more we wish to address changes and improvements with our government, the more we would have to veer from our present government. Once again, we would need a successful model, and once again I would suggest the Bahá’í model.

     In the Bahá’í system we would vote for all city council positions at once and if there were say nine positions open, the nine people with the most votes would be elected. This is a plurality system rather than a majority system. Plurality voting is just as reliable as majority voting systems. Likewise, the Bahá’í model decries “running” for office by not allowing nominating or campaigns. This principle that no one “runs” for office provides the electorate more choice when they go to the voting box, and the fact that people don’t “run” for office ensures that people with huge egos aren’t able to dominate the thinking of the voters with bombastic rhetoric.

     The Bahá’í model also has tiered voting for some positions, such as the way a local community will cast ballots for delegates to a national convention. This also occurs within political parties. My wife has been a delegate to the state and national convention.

     In a tiered system, the members of the city council could then join all the other electoral districts to vote for State offices, they in turn could vote for National offices. This would mean that the system is still “Representative” government, which is what we have now, it is just a different organization than our current system.

     Such a system still allows for many appointed positions operating under an elected individual. You can think in terms of the U.S. President appointing Cabinet officers.

     Now then, before someone starts saying “Well, that won’t work,” or “We shouldn’t abandon our current system which we’ve had for over 200 years,” I’ll remind everyone that the Bahá’í model isn’t theoretical it currently exists and has been operating successfully for 177 years, nearly as long as the U.S. government and is a system that is built on principles that allow for changes in order to keep up with changes in society, science and theology.

     I would also point out that if the American model were truly working and doing so without the need for improvement we wouldn’t be seeing all these problems, divisions, and breakdowns. Therefore, these manifestations of chaos are proof that our system is failing us.

     Since our government is, or once was, based on only the benefits of White Males, I believe that if we truly wish to have a working government based on a multicultural system and power structure, we need one more thing – a Reconciliation process, much like what the people of South Africa did to acknowledge the abuses, to accommodate reparations and then to move on as a united people. In other words we need a sense of Justice being applied to the previous actions of government.