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.