Journey of Democracy

Britain is institutionally the least democratic nation in the EU, and perhaps even the West. We used to talk about the journey of democracy for Eastern Europe, and now the journey of democracy for North Africa, but our own journey needs to be addressed (note; democracy is not a place or destination, but a way of doing things). If we want Britain to be more democratic, which is the aim of AV supporters, then we need more than electoral reform. A change to the voting system is just a minor shift, what we need is institutional change and a change in how politics is conducted.

Electoral reform does not go far enough. The main conclusion to be drawn from any debate on electoral reform is that no system is perfect. The advantage of AV is that its weaknesses are not so glaring when compared to the current system. Many have pointed out, including Clegg circa April 2010, that AV is a “petty little compromise” on the current system. One small step, barely even that.

PR is often seen as the most democratic electoral system; percentace of votes gained equals percentage of seats won. If we had PR then it would demand institutional change, particularly regionalism. Therefore “weak” central government would not matter as the regions would be in control; like the current state of affairs in Belgium. Belgium runs by PR and has not had a government since its elections in June 2010, but that is not catastrophic as it has strong regional government. Our centralised system would not cope with over 200 days of no government.

Any major electoral reform would demand fundamental changes in the British political landscape. PR, AMS, AV+, STV and the others simply would not work under current conditions.

What is really needed to become more democratic is institutional reform. Our system suffers from a tyrant; a fusions of powers, coalitions are not the norm, weak local government, party whips and strong party affiliation, effectively no second house, no separate president with veto power, no constitution, collective ministerial responsibility, the ability for 35% of the popular vote to translate into 55% of seats, the inherent secrecy, even the layout of the Commons, all feeds this tyrant.

The government can pass pretty much whatever it wants. The only limits are custom and the EU. So it is somewhat hypocritical that I would prefer to see away with custom. If an ideologically driven individual, like Thatcher, gets power, well we all know the results of that.

Two simple reforms should be supported; increase the power of member’s bills and autonomy in the committee stage. These small reforms would tilt the balance of power to the legislative. The Scottish Parliament is the inspiration; if an MSP raises a bill, which there is ample opportunity to, it must be discussed and it cannot be pigeonholed by the executive. Of course these are not enough, but they are a start.

To use a much over used, but still succinct quote about democracy from Abraham Lincoln; “Democracy is government of the people, for the people and by the people”. In that spirit, not only would I weaken central government by regionalism, I would go further and allow citizens to initiate legislation in their local areas. They would present their proposals to the local government, the voice of reason to prevent, say, discriminatory bills and to help develop the proposal (think Dragons Den). Then the citizen would campaign for the issue themselves. Once a year local referendums are held, up to ten proposals a year, and the citizens vote. So the people propose, campaign for and vote for legislation. Of course limits will be needed; citizens cannot affect the level of tax but may vote on how that money is spent in non-binding referenda (i.e. a poll). Participation is central to a healthy democracy. Modern democracy means more than just the occasional visit to the ballot box; it means lobbying, initiating, campaigning for issues

Politicians have a monumental task that is essential to a healthy democracy: restoring trust in politics. How can this be accomplished? By changing the attitude of politicians; how they approach people (or to have a presence in the first place) and how they behave.

There are two challenges to overcome; the distance and cynicism. We should not have to build bridges between politicians and people; we should be on the same side, especially the Labour party if it wants to be “The People’s Party”. This distance between politician and people is detrimental for everybody and can be readily overcome.

Politics needs to be positive. Years of negative campaigning has got us to our predicament. We do not agree with the current government, but we should not kick it while it is down. Rather than creating mistrust at the government, such an approach creates mistrust at politicians in general because “we are all the same” and “all in it for the money”, allegedly. At the doorstep, instead of saying why people should not vote for “them” we should say why they should vote for “us”, and have them believing in politics again. Vote for us because we can and we will, because we have a vision and a plan to help those less fortunate.  

Politicians have created a bubble distancing themselves from reality. As Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern proposed raising his salary by €38,000, to a total of €310,000 a year. Three quarters of the Irish workforce was on €38,000 or less. While politicians dine finely, live in fancy houses, splash out and live like kings on public expense, there are people out there struggling to pay the bills. It’s sickening at times. Politicians need to get back to reality; an immediate pay cut would not go amiss, considering the generous expenses they get and how many of them are already wealthy anyway and can make money by giving speeches. A politician’s wage, really, should be not much more than a teacher. Of course then the problem would be trying to stay competitive with the private sector; if the private sector pays so much more then the brightest and best would go to private sector jobs. I’m sure none of us got into politics for the fortune, but if we had to choose a parliamentary job or a job paying double to triple then it would be difficult to persuade people to the former. Then there is the suggestion of a maximum wage proportional to the minimum wage, but that’s a different topic. This getting back to reality is more than about wages. Politicians are in a curious place; they are not celebrities and yet their names are, and should be, recognised. But that is no excuse for creating a new aristocracy. Responsibility is the essential ingredient.

If we take there are, broadly, three degrees of democracy; direct, deliberative and representative. Our system is representative. The main flaw with this is that too often politicians follow the party that pays them rather than the people that elect them and thus create a “bubble” and breed mistrust.

However there is such a thing as too much democracy. It would be democratic to transgress citizens rights if over fifty percent voted for it. In California, the richest state in the USA, they are very democratic. So democratic that citizens vote against every tax raise, and as a result California has the second worst schools in the USA. Quantity does not equal quality, to quote Mussolini (I realise quoting Mussolini is a bit of a faux pas).

That leaves the middle ground – no surprise there. Basically, we talk to people, find out what they want and do it or explain why it cannot be done. If you want to build an extension; you do not do it yourself (direct democracy), nor do you call a builder and let him do whatever he wants (representative democracy), but you call a builder and tell him what you want, and the builder listens and advises. That's deliberative democracy.

How do we make Britain more democratic? We need institutional reform and a change in attitudes more than a simple, minor electoral shift. Participation is essential and for that we need trust, to build trust we need to be both present and positive. I firmly believe that the Labour party can be the vehicle for this change, for deliberative democracy, for emancipating the people and bursting the political bubble; but it needs to get back to the street and put the demo- back into democracy.

UKIP: The Septic Sceptics

Xenophobia has a new voice in British politics; a distinctly upper-middle class voice. UKIP have been rumbling away in the background for nearly two decades, but given a series of high profile cases, they are now the largest ‘minor party’ in England. The time has come to take notice of them and to challenge them.

UKIP are fashioning themselves as the ‘third party in British politics’. This claim comes about from successful elections in 2009, 2010 and by-elections, and the collapse of Liberal Democrat support. It’s great that UKIP are so optimistic, but they need to get real. They are not going to appeal to Liberal Democratic voters, and the Liberal Democrats are still polling about the same as ‘Other’ in the polls (‘Other’ being primarily UKIP, BNP, SNP, Plaid and Greens). They are not as much a force as they think they are; not in Britain and not even in Barnsley.

Their claim is a bit pre-emptive; yes they came second in Barnsley but in the grand scheme they gained only 3.5% of the vote in England in 2010. Scarcely a massive signal of intent. And let’s bear in mind this was an election where opinion of the two mainstream parties was at historic lows.

UKIP want to ‘replace the Liberal Democrats’. That tactic is not going to work; the majority of UKIP voters, it’s fair to say, come from more Conservative backgrounds. UKIP got more votes in the South West and less in Scotland, Wales and the North East. They are not going to win over Liberal Democratic voters but instead are more likely to make gains from disillusioned Conservative voters.

The reality of 2009 and 2010 for UKIP is not as rosy as they claim; despite gains averaging 1% in every region, being concomitant with BNP gains, and becoming the fourth party and the largest ‘protest vote’, they still only got 3.1% in 2010. In the EU elections, where UKIP are expected to punch above their weight, they still only got 2.5million. The majority of people simply do not care whether we are in the EU or not, primarily because they do not know about the EU.

The message for UKIP then is simply ‘get real’.

Personally, I am massively pro-EU. But I acknowledge not everyone is enthusiastic, and I can accept criticism of the EU; there are arguments and cases against it. But the arguments UKIP level against the EU border on the illogical.

Their main platform is one of sovereignty – the right to self determination, for Britain to decide British laws, not Brussels. But then what of Britain’s economic sovereignty which is being given away to the markets? What of the UN, NATO, the WTO? There was not even a referendum to join them. Our cultural sovereignty is not being attacked by the EU, or even immigration, but if anything, by American hegemony; we have malls, proms, fast food and neo-liberalism, not siestas, schnitzels, lederhosen or dirigisme. EU funding has in fact gone towards preserving British culture and the EU slogan “United in Diversity” enshrines our cultural autonomy. Our sovereignty is being taken away more by other forces, and the EU actually protects Britain from them. In the 21^st Century there are no independent states, we are all interdependent upon each other.

Furthermore on this sovereignty debate; sovereignty belongs to the people. The EU is not taking away that sovereignty but through its regionalism program is in fact giving sovereignty back to the people. What is the difference between giving our power to the markets and giving it to the EU? We can influence the EU, and with the growing power of the democratic EU parliament the people are swiftly gaining influence. The sovereignty platform of UKIP is illogical and full of double standards.

Another main argument against the EU is that it is undemocratic and unaccountable; however this is something that can be rectified and to change that we need to get into Europe rather than get out. But how undemocratic is it compared to Britain? The executive is not directly elected, but neither is the UK's Prime Minister or Monarch, and with upcoming Lisbon Treaty changes the executive will be directly drawn from the elected Parliament, in line with our own procedures. The lack of recognition is a major problem for the EU, but again it can be rectified and is not an argument for leaving it. The EU is as democratic, if not more so, than the UK Parliament.

The image painted by UKIP is that the EU is an overly-bureaucratic and expensive monolith. This over-bureaucracy makes it hopelessly inefficient. That is actually a fair argument, however UKIP exaggerates it, and we just know that if the EU was efficient they would complain about a ‘lack of democracy’. Democratic checks and balances create inefficiency; things get debated fully and properly, as a result progress is slow – the federal level of the USA is a prime example here. That is not efficient, but it is democratic, whereas efficiency is often associated with tyranny. The EU is in a lose-lose situation here, much to the joy of UKIP.

As flawed as UKIP policy and ideology is their methods border on disbelief. If any mainstream party tried their tactics they would be laughed out of contention.

Phil Woolas got the boot for lying about an opponent, and another independent candidate is facing court trials of accusing another candidate of paedophilia. But if politicians were not allowed to lie in elections then UKIP would have no campaign; they are full of lies, the infamous “Euro-Myths” (most of which are debunked at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/take_part/myths_en.htm). Some of these myths are outrageous to the point of disbelief; and yet they are being believed and spread outrage. I remember a UKIP candidate in 2009 saying to my face that the EU was planning to put tracking devices in iPods. That is not a misreading of a proposal, but a flat out lie. Even if the EU wanted to, it couldn’t, and yet this was apparently “immanent”. Pure populist scaremongering, pure exploitation of a misunderstood entity, pure lies. And yet they get away with it. They are lying in their campaigns, surely there is some grounds for prosecution?

Things only get worse when they gained office. One need only look at their behaviour in the EU Parliament and cringe; they called Martin Schultz (leader of the Social Democratic grouping in the EU Parliament) a ‘Nazi’, they cause a ruckus, they oppose simply for the sake of opposing even when they agree with the proposals. A prime example of the latter is any attempt by the EU to protect animal welfare or construct a more efficient energy scheme which UKIP supports but votes against. Not only does that damage the EU, but it damages Britain, the very entity they claim to protect.

We need to expose UKIP. It is far more beneficial for the UK to be more active in the EU; we are the third biggest nation both economically and by population and yet since joining we have been a spanner in the works, the ‘empty chair’. It is time for the UK to take its rightful place in Europe and not sideline ourselves anymore. We should be central; any Franco-German summits concerning the EU needs to have UK representation. One problem here is the Conservatives leaving the EPP, thus leaving Britain without representation in the biggest party in the EU. They complain of being sidelined; they have sidelined themselves!

Recognition of the EU is the greatest asset to tackling the growth of UKIP. We get headlines of a US congresswoman being shot or of floods in Australia, but nothing on Europe 2020, or of Sarkozy at G20, and there’s barely a sniff of the Hamburg elections in Germany or the Portuguese Presidential elections. Recognition is vital for democracy; once people understand the EU, or learn to look beyond the mistruths, then UKIP can no longer exploit them on lies.

UKIP are a symptom of a fundamental problem with the EU-UK relationship; recognition and communication. Not only are they a product, but they are also now a cause of it by spreading myths and misconceptions about the EU. The UK benefits hugely from EU membership, and there is the potential for more; we need to get this message out there. The most effective way to tackle UKIP is to tackle their single issue and turn it against them; have people recognise and support the EU. This requires a shift in Labour's attitude, but also a shift in media coverage and a more active role from the EU.