Different Elections—Same Issues
Outside the United States, the same issues confront candidates in other elections.
by Melvin Rhodes
The United States is not the only country that has been going through an election campaign.
During the last few weeks, I've had the opportunity to closely observe the Canadian and Australian elections. New Zealand and the United Kingdom are also going through the early stages of elections, expected to be held next year. The prime minister of each country determines the date of the election, though elections must be held within a prescribed period: five years for the United Kingdom and Canada, three for Australia.
All four nations have a similar parliamentary system. They are all constitutional monarchies with Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. Their prime ministers are not directly elected. People in each individual constituency vote for their representatives in parliament. Whichever party has the majority of seats then takes charge of the government, with the leader of the party becoming prime minister.
All four countries have a long history of political stability and, like America, have had democratic institutions since colonial times. The four nations are all that remain of the "multitude of nations" descended from the biblical patriarch Joseph's son Ephraim (Genesis 48:19; see our booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy to trace this fascinating history). Collectively, as the British Empire, they were a superpower before the United States.
All five countries, America included, have a great deal in common. Change the names of the personalities involved in electioneering, and you wouldn't know which country you were in. The issues being debated, it seems, are the same everywhere.
Of course, there are some local issues that vary from country to country. But the main issues are common to all.
One of these is health care.
Increasing costs of health care
All five countries have massive numbers of baby boomers coming up for retirement. These will need more health care as they age. Where is the money coming from?
At the same time, advances in medical care mean that people are demanding more options, which, in turn, help people live longer, during which time they require ever more health care. Who is going to pay for it?
The four parliamentary democracies all have government health-care systems. Even in the United States, the government is heavily involved in providing medical care. Almost 50 percent of all medical care in the United States is covered by Medicare (for the elderly) or Medicaid (for some of those who have no private medical insurance). A recent survey in the United States showed that those who benefit from Medicare and Medicaid are the most satisfied with their medical care; those depending on private insurance were the least happy.
What it all seems to come down to is this: People everywhere want first-class medical care, but they don't want to pay a high premium for it!
In Canada, the national government and the leaders of the provinces had to work together to come up with an additional $18 billion (Canadian) for the medical system.
In Australia, in the closing days of the election campaign, leaders of both main parties were making various promises to improve the system. With high taxes already in place, I wondered where the money was going to come from. Higher taxes, still?
In England, health care has been an issue for decades. When the government-run National Health Service was first introduced in 1948, it was the envy of many nations. No longer is that the case. People routinely wait months (or years) for surgery. The government has made health care a priority and has diverted considerable sums of money to improve the system, but the public perception is that it's still inadequate.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is that health care is a bottomless pit—no matter how much you spend on it, you can always spend more.
In the United States, health care is still a private matter for roughly half the population. Typically, large employers provide health-care coverage for their employees, with employees usually having to pay a deductible amount in full and then co-payments, often in the 10 to 25 percent range. Employees can pay into special tax-free funds to cover their expenses. The paperwork for all this is quite horrendous, which, in turn, means higher overhead for doctors and hospitals.
Health-care costs have risen way above the rate of inflation. The United States now spends about twice as much of its GNP on health care as any other Western nation (14 percent against 7 percent in the United Kingdom). Americans like to think that they have the best health-care system in the world (but then again, so do the British).
The World Health Organization (WHO) begs to differ, listing the United States at 37th in a world league of health-care systems. This ranking took into account longevity, infant mortality rates, preventive care and many other factors. The United States had a higher rate of infant mortality than most Western nations and lacked terribly when it came to preventive care. There's a simple explanation for this—private medicine cannot make money out of preventive care, whereas government medical systems have a vested interest in preventing sickness so that they save money further down the line!
According to the WHO, France had the best system. The United Kingdom was 18th on the list; Canada was at number 30. In fairness, it should be pointed out that France's very generous medical system is giving it serious economic problems in other areas and cut-backs are increasingly likely. And Canada's system had to be bailed out recently with that extra $18 billion.
A further complication here is the low birthrate in all five countries since the post-World War II baby boomer generation. Not one of the five countries has a birthrate that can support its growing elderly population. Faced with rising government expenditure for health care and retirement pensions (social security) in the coming years, all five countries allow immigration by younger people from developing nations with high birthrates.
Putting aside the social problems that this is creating, particularly in the inner cities of all five countries, these countries haven't asked the question: Will people from Asia and Africa, where extended family systems are the norm, be willing to pay out to support elderly white people whose children don't want to take care of them?
In a democracy, such questions don't matter yet. That particular question won't need answering until three or four elections down the line, and politicians only think as far as the next election.
Security concerns
National security is another major issue under discussion in all five countries, though somewhat less so in out-of-the-way New Zealand.
The United States, United Kingdom and Australia have troops in Iraq. All three countries have lost nationals in terrorist attacks, either on or since Sept. 11, 2001. Australia lost almost 100 of its citizens in the Bali bombing one year later, on Oct. 12, 2002. A bomb attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta in the run-up to the election was a further reminder of the threat from Islamic militants. The leader of the opposition Labor Party, Mark Latham, argued that Australia was suffering from terrorism because it supported the Bush administration in Iraq.
Similar arguments are being made by many in the United Kingdom. Even in America itself, Democrats suggested that a change in administration, with a subsequent change in foreign policy, would bring about a decrease in terrorism and worldwide anti-Americanism.
All three countries are clearly divided on the issue of national security. Opinion polls show the division to be approximately 50-50.
What is interesting, though, is how at a time of increased threats to their national security, cutbacks in defense expenditure are either being considered or are already being put into practice.
New Zealand's military, by some accounts, is almost nonexistent today. Many New Zealanders feel that their geographical location makes it unlikely that anybody will attack them. And, if any country did, Australia would quickly come to their aid, as the Australians wouldn't want a hostile power to attack their close neighbor.
The United Kingdom is reducing the size of its military yet again. Already less than 25 percent of what it was when Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1952, and committed to more wars by this prime minister than any before him, the British military is clearly over-stretched.
Canada, one of the six countries targeted on al-Qaeda's recent hit list, seems content with a small military and is trying to keep a low profile, staying out of everything as much as possible.
Meanwhile, the current Australian government of Prime Minister John Howard, reelected Oct. 9 to a fourth term in office, gives priority to the ANZUS treaty, whereby Australia, New Zealand and the United States have committed themselves to aid each other in the event of attack. Australians have committed troops to Iraq, just as they did to Vietnam.
Even the United States has to carefully assess the costs of troop commitments, before making any more, because it is so expensive to deploy and supply soldiers far from home. This comes at a time when international terrorism is creating ever more trouble spots around the world.
One reason for the lack of funds for the military is the need for ever greater funds for health care and other social programs. So far, the United States is covering both needs by "borrowing" from future generations through the accumulation of massive deficits—not an option in the other four countries.
Governments in democratic nations have to listen to the people, if only to remain in office. The dilemma for democratic countries in this age of global Islamic terrorism will be to give the people what they want, while at the same time ensuring their safety. The 1930s showed the folly of defense cuts at the expense of domestic considerations, nearly resulting in a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Nazis.
Al-Qaeda, responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11, Oct. 12 and many other occasions, has listed four of these five countries as priority targets. Only New Zealand was not listed. The two other countries on their priority list were Italy (presumably for supporting the United States in Iraq) and Spain, which was ruled by the Muslim Moors for centuries and is therefore subject to a territorial claim. Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq following a major series of terror attacks on Madrid in March. Italy may do so when the present prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, is no longer in office. This would then leave the four English-speaking countries listed as the top targets of Islamic terror.
Given the mutual defense treaty between the United States, Australia and New Zealand, one has to wonder when al-Qaeda will realize the strategic and relatively low risk value in targeting New Zealand. Such an attack could cost the United States and Australia considerable sums to deploy forces to New Zealand to protect it against further attacks.
But why this unique connection between these English-speaking countries in today's world? God's inspired revelation to His creation, the Bible, shows us that all five nations are descended from one of the 12 sons of Israel. All share a common history and destiny.
The commonly called "Lost Tribes of Israel" may be discovered and understood from the very pages of the Bible found on your shelf or by your bedside. If you would like to understand more about the United States and the nations of the Commonwealth, please request our free booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy. WNP
[ Return to Table of Contents ] [ View next article ]