Failing “democracy” (Version 01)
There is no universal agreement on what democracy is. Perhaps it is easier to say what it is not. Soviet Russia claimed to be a democracy: it was not. The UK and the USA claim to be democracies: they are not.
A dictionary definition says that democracy is “a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people collectively, and is administered by them or by officers appointed by them”. Power to the people? Not in the UK! Our democracy fails in several respects. Below is a preliminary review of some of these failings. Individual points are serially numbered for ease of reference. But which are causes and which are symptoms? Indeed, are they all pertinent to the undoubted democratic shortfall? Perhaps the next version of this paper will be able to disentangle things a bit. Particularly if readers provide constructive comments!
Perception, trust, interest.
The received wisdom is that apathy abounds. But is it real? And do the politicians who lament it act to reduce it, or do they cause it?
There is certainly a widespread (1) lack of interest shown in political matters, and this is usually interpreted as signifying apathy. Evidence cited for this includes (2) low turnout for elections, (3) lack of serious public debate of political questions, and (4) low (and generally falling) membership of political parties. But an alternative, and rather more plausible view is that (5) people are disaffected rather than apathetic. There are various reasons for this, including very many of the democratic failings listed in this paper, leading to a (6) lack of belief that any individual action will “make a difference”, and resulting in a (7) lack of involvement of people in the political process.
There is a distinct (8) lack of trust in the honesty of politicians, and (9) a lack of belief in their capability. Many think there is (10) widespread “sleaze”, in the form of use of position to personal advantage, disregard of clear conflict of interest, special treatment for family and friends, or just straightforward corruption. The UK may indeed be, as is sometimes claimed, less corrupt than other countries, but not everybody is blameless. UK politicians and functionaries may indeed be, as is sometimes claimed, more able than those in other countries, but things do inevitably go wrong, sometimes predictably so. And public perception is too often coloured by mistreatment of the problems. When something happens, there is often a (11) a cover up of lies, misdemeanours and errors, and there is often (12) excessive attention in the media, particularly if they smell blood, however minor the infringement, to the exclusion of more serious issues.
Party politics.
Political parties, and the party orientation of our system of appointing and operating governments, have highly undemocratic effects.
Political parties generally have a range of party policies agreed by the members. Or, more likely in the larger parties, (13) policies are established by an unrepresentative assembly of volunteer delegates. People who join a party are expected to support all its policies. (14) Members who voice opposition to party policy risk being expelled. Moreover, (15) members of the party are expected to continue to give their loyal support even when policy is ignored or changed by the leadership.
Party politics is assumed to be based on the idea of competition between opposing factions rather than on cooperation between groups of differing outlook, which is taken to create (16) an obligation to disagree wherever possible, and when agreement cannot be avoided to express it as negatively as possible (e.g. “We are glad that they have at last done this, which we proposed as a matter of urgency five years ago.”). And because they are essentially antagonistic parties are generally exclusive, and are (17) likely to expel any member who joins a second party.
Only a very small number of parties have any realistic chance of participating in the formation of a government. The voter is thus offered (18) a choice between a small number of bundles of policy, none of which is likely to be fully accepted even by all members of the party which presents it. Even so, (19) a vote for any party is deemed to be vote in favour of all its policies. At least it is whenever that assumption suits the leadership, because (20) when policy is changed voters are deemed in fact to have voted for the party leaders.
Indeed, (21) party lists are used in some elections. Then voters choose just the party, and not individuals. In such circumstances, by granting the party leaders the right to nominate delegates, voting is more an abrogation of democracy than the exercise of it.
Elected representatives are not generally free to represent, but are (22) subject to the anti-democratic practice of “whipping”. Somebody ostensibly elected as a person, and as the representative of a constituency, is nevertheless required to obey the instructions of the party leadership in any vote, regardless of personal views or of the inclinations and needs of constituents.
(23) Political debate tends to be unconstructive, sterile confrontation between people who are committed to opposing each other on “principle”, rather than seeking arrangements all can agree on. Moreover, it is laced with (24) too much personal comment and ad hominem argument. And it contains (25) too much infantile ya boo points scoring.
It is sometimes argued that, in an imperfect world, parties do the best they can. But, sadly, (26) parties too often just do the best they can to stay in power. The interests of the nation are too often secondary, and considered only to the extent that promoting them helps the party’s election prospects. To that end, (27) votes are “bought” by measures cynically calculated to have that effect; e.g. selling council houses at half price.
It is sometimes claimed that party politics are an essential component of democracy and that all “democracies” necessarily operate on the party system. But such views are unarguable, though unenlightening, given that those who hold them make them true by definition, and would not call any nation a democracy in the absence of unfettered party politics. And in a “free” democracy, in the absence of any legislation to arrange otherwise, (28) people have little chance of being politically effective if not in a party. Essentially, they have to join to survive politically; just as people have to join gangs in lawless cities This effect is exacerbated by the fact that (29) independent candidates are not really taken seriously by electoral system.
Selection of representatives.
In all parliamentary constituencies the (30) selection of candidates tends to be done by small groups of ageing activists in the various political parties. Moreover, most constituencies are not regarded as “marginal”, given that there is a very high probability that the candidate for one particular party will be elected in them. That small clique thus in effect appoints the MP. Except that in some case they do not even do that, and have (31) a specific candidate imposed on them by the central organisation of the party.
In the selection of candidates there is often a strong, though usually covert, (32) bias against certain groups, typically against females and against people with darker skin, but doubtless other biases also come into play. Moreover, success in selection generally requires ambitious self promotion, and various other not entirely praiseworthy characteristics. Thus (33) the whole selection process, from nomination to election, tends to act against people with an altruistic devotion to public service (despite which a surprisingly large proportion of such people do in fact get through). And one of the undesirable effects of bias, both in the selection process and in those who select, is that (34) there are far too few women in parliament.
The current voting system (one-member constituencies won by the candidate with most votes, known as “First Past the Post”, or FPTP) has some strongly anti-democratic effects. The most obvious is that (35) FPTP very often gives victory to a candidate with a minority of the votes. If, for example, there are five candidates then one with with 22% of votes cast would beat those with 21%, 20%, 19% and 18% (and when there is a 50% turnout that implies support of only 11% of the electorate).
In such circumstances it could reasonably be claimed that at least 57% of votes (those cast for the lowest three candidates) were “wasted”, on the grounds that if they had been placed for the second highest then he would have won. Hence people are induced, and encouraged by political parties, to indulge in (36) tactical voting, casting their vote not for the one they want but for the one perceived as being most likely to defeat the one they don’t want. This ludicrous situation could be easily resolved by allowing voters to rank their preferences, and then, when votes are counted, progressively transferring the votes of the least favoured candidate to the next choice until one had a clear majority (aka the Alternative Vote system).
Moreover, having (37) single member entails heavy overall bias, in that any small bias is likely to be repeated in many constituencies, and thus have its effects greatly amplified. Thus if, for example, every constituency party exhibited a slight preference for dim, middle-aged, white male candidates then that could be the only type of candidate offered to the electorate by all the parties. And even if there were a choice, it could be that only such candidates actually win seats. The end result could be that Parliament is composed of 100% such people, however small the actual preference for them. If, to counteract that bias, we had multi-member constituencies, then that, combined with the preferential voting system outlined above, would lead to what is called the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, which is sometimes advocated by various smaller parties but never (for obvious selfish reasons) by the larger parties. But not PR, which is And even parties sensible and responsible enough to advocate STV call it Proportional Representation (PR), which it is not. And true PR is in any case arguably both unattainable and undesirable. And STV supporters also tend to advocate revolutionary change, and would be better advised to go for immediate AV followed by progressive amalgamation of constituencies where appropriate.
Operation of government.
(38) Lack of concern for people’s views, wishes, interests, by representatives, ministers, advisers
Although undoubtedly an essential component of the legislature, (39) the House of Lords is not representative of anything democratic. It is part appointed (i.e. people deemed suitable by leader of ruling party), part hereditary (i.e. only people from “aristocratic” families). In addition there may still even be a few Anglican bishops, though at least the Oxford and Cambridge representation has been terminated. Even then, its judgements as moderator of decisions by the elected House of Commons are (40) too easily overruled. In the end, there is no apparent obligation for the government to be guided by the views of the House of Lords, however strongly held and expressed.
Despite much talk and some movement to the contrary, there is still an excessive (41) lack of openness in government. More is revealed now than used to be, but usually only after the event when it is too late to do anything about it, and then usually subject to administrative decisions to treat as a matter of “national security” anything sensitive or potentially embarrassing.
There is a clearly visible and very strong (42) current trend towards autocracy. There is a movement towards having (43) judicial decisions made by ministers rather than e.g. the courts. There seem to be (44) growing numbers of operational decisions made by ministerial decree rather than by parliament. In general, (45) the views of Parliament are not respected by the government, and there is a (46) tendency for parliament to be consulted for show, and not with a view to letting it influence decisions if that can be avoided. And nowadays it seems that (47) government decisions are made by a small inner clique of minsters and advisors, and not by the Cabinet acting collectively. Moreover, it is clear that (48) all this is under the control of and subject to the wishes of one man, the Prime Minister. It is true that he was, in a sense, democratically elected to that role, but so was Adolf Hitler.
There is a distinct and growing (49) lack of respect for “civil liberties”, with many outrageous transgressions from Thatcher’s war on the miners to Blair’s legislation in his and Bush’s “war on terror”.
(50) too much power and influence to lobbies, pressure groups and professional associations.
(51) too centralised – too much Whitehall rather than local authority – (52) too few effective neighbourhood fora.
(53) too unaccountable – too remote, too much out of sight and out of reach and out of control of people:
health, education, police, judiciary, utilities, transport
The politicians like to think they are in control, but it would be truer to say that (54) civil servants make policy. This is partly because of much covert activity and partly because of a lack of continuity in the political direction (between elections as much as after them!). And the influence of the political masters is not strengthened by the fact that when they do succeed in imposing their idea they too often turn out to be confused, ill thought through, half baked, and possibly even counter‑effective, though the suspicion has to be that this is because when ministers seek to encroach on the civil servants’ decision-making role they do not always receive the constructive support needed and merited to help make their idea workable.
(55) cynical hypocrisy and double standards; e.g. foreign policy, immigration, defence, globalisation, environment — (56) too easy use of optional principles, used to justify actions but when asked to explain why same principles do not apply in another case, “because they give the wrong answer”
Because of considerable commonality of interest, national leaders tend to do much to support each other, not always in the best interests of their own people. The result is a de facto international (57) conspiracy of leaders against their people.
In recent years there has been significant cession of UK independence to the European Union. Unusually, the decision to join was in fact made following a national referendum, and can therefore be said to have represented the wishes of the people. However, there continues to be much debate (largely ill-informed: see below) on whether the loss of independence and other perceived disadvantages of membership are excessive in relation to the real and undoubted benefits.
At the same time, there has been (58) very little serious public discussion about various other international treaties and arrangements which entail a possibly much greater loss of independence. These do not include the United Nations, obligations to which can be and are ignored with impunity, but they might be deemed to include such things as the Whaling Convention and the Kyoto Treaty, not to mention relationships with the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation.
But by far the most significant of these is (59) the servile relationship with the USA, to which the UK has become almost totally subservient, without any serious public discussion, without the knowledge of a large proportion of the population, and almost certainly against what they would have wished. In particular, (60) the UK retains virtually no independent capability or freedom of operations in “defence”.
Education and information.
The operation of a democracy depends vitally on a well-informed electorate able to make rational and public spirited use of the information it has. Good democracy thus requires good information, good education, and a good moral climate. We have none of these to the extent needed, and successive governments do to little to promote them, partly because of lack of insight but mainly, one suspects, because they conflict with a more pressing need for them to obtain and retain power.
It is often claimed that the praiseworthy freedom of our press is one of the bastions of our democracy. And so it is, to a large extent. But (61) ownership and control of media is all up for sale to the highest bidder! As a result, anybody with enough money can buy enormous influence, for political or commercial ends. Thus (62) popular opinion comes to be highly influenced by a small group of commercially motivated plutocrats, generally of right wing inclination. (Press support for neocon agenda; hounding of Clinton; payments for favourable reports.)
There is (63) too much unfettered advertising, much of it aimed at exploiting the vulnerable and impressionable (e.g. children), all of it aimed at setting the agenda, the moral tone, establishing desires for what is not needed and not affordable, and promoting use of things which harm the purchaser, the world (tobacco, alcohol, junk food, , cars, …). People are sold the benefits of consumption and acquisition, and taught to have a competitively materialistic outlook. Much harm is thus done to the moral climate, and to people’s contentedness and joy of life, for purely commercial ends. In effect, (64) business is granted freedom to buy the minds of people.
All of which is consistent with the still corrosive Thatcher-originated government (65) policy of greed and ruthless pursuit of short-term personal and sectional interest, regardless of the effects on the rest of the population and the legacy for the future.
There is much positive (66) disinformation – from press, from government, from parties, from lobbies and pressure groups – e.g. about EU, immigration, environment,
(67) BBC fettered; and (68) conned into competition
(69) too little education about the world
(70) too little stimulation of rational, critical thought in education. To think is to examine and question, and this inevitably leads into areas which are forbidden, because they are “political”, or concerned with religion, or sex, or . . .
Other.
(71)
WJW/(long before)30Sep18)