DEMOCRACY - OR POLITICS?
Recently I spent a long day travelling to London, as one of some
10000 people bussed in from all over the country, and - under
the aegis of the Democracy Movement - walking slowly in procession
from Marble Arch to Trafalgar Square. The aim was to protest against
entry of the United Kingdom into the common currency system -
a protest that should have been unnecessary, since it is well
accepted that the majority of the electorate is hostile to the
idea. We listened to a number of speeches, some delivered in heavy
rain - and went home.
This ineffectual protest (not even noticed by Press or TV, since
non-violent) exemplifies the failings of 'representative democracy'
as a system of government. Aristotle (384-322 BC)(Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 14th Ed., Vol. 7, 182), no doubt recalling
the original and more successful direct democracy, practised
in the Greek city-states in earlier centuries, thoroughly condemned
such a system as a 'perversion' of constitutional government.
Rudyard Kipling also was scornful of modern versions of democracy,
and they serve us very poorly today; but they well suit the convenience
of politicians, for whom a knowledge of the wishes of the electors
is an embarrassment to be avoided.
Unfortunately, of course, democracy, however genuine, is not a
guarantee of good government; after all, the Nazi party was elected
in the beginning by perfectly democratic means - even though its
infamous persecution of the Jewish population was known to the
electorate. On a lesser scale of 'inappropriate' results of democracy,
we have American states voting to reduce taxation to the point
at which government services cannot be provided. So - are Kipling
and the politicians right; are we unfit to rule ourselves? We
need not, perhaps, take so pessimistic a view.
During the march, we in the column were offered pamphlets by organisations
ranging from the Communist Party to the UK Independence Party.
One, issued by the Populist Party, incorporated a manifesto so
rational that, if adopted by a major party, it would guarantee
an overwhelming majority. (But how many candidates are the Populists
likely to field in 2001?) Significantly, the small print did in
fact contain the phrase 'direct democracy'.
It is alleged that greater population numbers make it impossible
to practise direct democracy, but with modern technology it would
surely not be difficult to devise some equivalent system. It is
not reasonable to expect this initiative to come from politicians,
whose experience is in operating the system, not designing it.
So how might this goal be attained? The only modern approach to
it is the Swiss model, in which important single issues are sometimes
settled by referendum. But if we are to avoid last-minute, ad
hoc referendums, then elections should stop being about personalities
and start to deal with concrete issues. A most outrageous example
of the contrary practice was seen at the last General Election,
when problems with the European Community were already serious
and urgent - and the Labour Party's televised pre-election statements
deliberately made no reference whatever to any such issues. In
this way political parties treat the electorate with contempt.
Many people have complained that at the 1997 election there was
no party proposing even a remotely acceptable legislative programme;
such people were effectively disfranchised. 'Opinion polls' are
held ad nauseam, to settle nothing but which of the parties
jockeying for power is currently the less unpopular. Must this
frustrating situation continue indefinitely? And if it
must, then for Heaven's sake let us stop describing this country
as a democracy.
Why should an election not become - instead of a simple demand
for a blank cheque by two or three competing, but equally unattractive
groups - primarily an opportunity to elect policies, rather
than parties, those self-perpetuating, squabbling, class-linked
oligarchies? There would be several stages, some of which would
be novel and additional to the present procedure. Specifically:
1. It would be open to anyone to nominate (in priority order)
distinct issues on which the electorate required a clear policy;
these would be submitted to and sifted by an independent body
such as the Electoral Reform Society, which would condense them
into a set of perhaps ten or twelve issues representing the major
concerns of the electorate at that time. On each issue a limited
number of alternative options, say two or three, should be specified.
For the important issue of taxation, to prevent unrealistic targets
being discussed, the overall level of taxation would not be in
play - but the major issue of what taxes to levy would be open
to views. Existing political parties would be able to make an
input at this stage if they wished.
2. This Society should then require the whole electorate
(a) to place these issues in order of importance
(b) to select one of the available options on each issue.
(The right to vote in the later stage(s) of the election might
perhaps be made conditional upon the return of a correctly completed
form at this stage.)
The Society would probably require the services of a government
department to perform these duties, including publishing the electorate's
wishes as now made known.
3. The next stage of the process would take the form of a sort
of Dutch Auction; political parties - new or old - and each of
their election candidates would be required to 'tender', stating
clearly on how many issues they were prepared to carry out the
wishes of the electorate - and why they preferred their own opinions
on the others.
This should force parties to come into the open on all the major
issues (as known at the date of the election), and too low a bid
by any existing party would be a clear invitation for a new party
to come into being. A return to the tradition of 'independent'
members would be welcome; at Westminster, voting should be by
secret ballot, which would make it more likely that Members would
vote in accordance with their conscience, and help to break the
stranglehold of the established political parties.
4. Finally a General Election in its conventional form would be
held to elect MPs on party platforms - but at least the electorate
would have had the chance to set out the playing field.
5. It would be necessary to establish criteria of compliance with
a party's 'tender of acceptance' of options/issues; serious infringement
would trigger a new election. New issues arising subsequent to
the election would of course be dealt with on their merits, and
if the Government's policies are felt to be wrong a vigilant electorate
should make sure that their representatives are aware of their
disapproval.
Such a procedure might ultimately give us governments that are
the servants, not the masters, of those whom they are supposed
to represent.
Anthony Davis
November 2000