For Maturity, For Plurality

Election time is almost upon us, with devolved parliament seats up for grabs, local elections and of course the AV referendum. The spirit of reform is in the air and it is reform much needed. I have previously written about the need for the role of the opposition to evolve to match the burgeoning of a less two-sided party dynamic. In order to achieve this however the way we perceive democracy must also change. Mr Charles Kennedy, the Right Honourable Member for Ross, Skye & Lochaber, wrote that:

'The danger in all of this is that if sufficient people conclude that there is nothing in the conventional political process for them then they may opt for more simplistic and extreme options on offer. I remain an optimist. But across the mainstream political spectrum there is a candid recognition of the danger.'
(Mr Charles Kennedy, 2006)

It is my feeling that these times of electoral disaffection present an important conjuncture that desperately needs to be exploited, if we are to succeed in keeping the public engaged with democracy. This view is not, however, universally shared:

'I do not believe that the cure for the ills of our democracy is more democracy. Indeed, one of the problems for the proponents of more democracy is that the people of this country do not seem to want it.'
(Lord Howarth of Newport, 2010)

Which is a pretty damning indictment of the public at the best of times. However this was worse:

'You can take horses to water, but you cannot make them drink.'
(Lord Howarth of Newport, 2010)

I watched & listened as this speech was delivered in the Lords. I can honestly admit to having been furious. This statement stank of an arrogance and sense of entitlement that seems to typify our parliamentary system. Not even considering the condescension shown to the electorate by the unelected Baron, Lord Howarth's speech came down to the question:

'Where should our reforming energies most usefully be applied? In the House of Commons: that is most important, but that is not for us [Lords].'
(Lord Howarth of Newport, 2010)

It seems then that democracy must be healed not by abolishing an unelected institution that is completely anathema to the best democratic traditions. We are told we must iron out the creases in democratic procedure to get the voters re-engaged, not sweep away the contradictions, corruptions and comprehensive lack of representation at the most basic constituency level.

Lord Howarth however did press an important point into his speech amongst his ardent defence of his own job in the House of Lords:

'We need more constitutionalism; more checks and balances.'
(Lord Howarth of Newport, 2010)

This for me is the central argument for the British political system to mature into a modern plurality. No longer is a single minority opposition standing against a majoritarian government enough. No government achieved a majority at the 2010 UK General Election and no Government has achieved over 50% of the popular vote in the past two decades at least. My thoughts on all of this are:

+ What people want from democracy is not magical. People want democracy that is accountable, that is effective and that is above all representative. They want to know that when they cast a ballot that they will be listened to. Nick Clegg's surge in popularity occurred when people thought that a Liberal Democrat vote would change politics. The surge ended when people feared that they would spend the next five years marginalised.

+ What lessons can we learn, both from our British experience as well as from Europe and beyond about how best to re-engage the nation in politics? The debates appears to have been a step towards greater visibility to the public, but what else can be done?

My final thought is that plurality invites people to increase their stake, their personal involvement in and personal power over the way their lives are governed. It expects, demands even, that they open their eyes and their minds, inwards and outwards. To me this is preferable, if more difficult, than blind adherence. As John Stuart Mill put it:

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.
(J.S. Mill, 1859)

==========
References:
==========
+ Charles Kennedy's 'How we lost people's trust';

+ Lord Howarth of Newport's Speech; Constitutional Reform Debate, 2:57pm, 28th January 2010.

- (For the full transcript and others from Parliamentary debates, see: http://www.theyworkforyou.com)

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.