Democracy
(Because 17.4 million lemmings can’t all be wrong)
Even by my standards … my output on Medium has, of late, been an irregular mixed bag and not terribly substantial either — barely even lightweight nonsense, never mind anything of substance.
There are a variety of reasons for that — not least that I haven’t really had much I particularly wanted to say … nor the élan to say it even if I had.
But something has been on my mind for a while and I’m motivated to say something about it at last.
First a preamble though …
… or two …
Okay … what with most of you being Zone 3 dwelling morlocks … the chances are that you, dear reader, won’t know about this, but there’s been this thing called Brexit going on for a while that has been sucking the life out of public discourse here in the first world for the last …
Is it two or three years now?
Four?
I can’t remember any more (it isn’t popularly referred to as the Neverendum for nothing) … but it has absorbed virtually all public/political energy into it like a black hole.
And it has focused my attention in such a way recently that some old ideas have resurfaced with greater clarity — nothing I haven’t said before but more concisely/precisely.
It has brought to light some serious misconceptions on the part of (seemingly) almost everyone about how Democracy functions in the UK.
So … what, exactly, is the setup in the UK then?
Archaic and seemingly complex but, actually, not really what many (if not most) people are led to believe …
For hundreds of years now, Britain/the UK has bumbled along with this system of government and, whilst people have criticised it in various ways for various reasons, no-one has really objected to the fundamentals.
But Brexit has thrown a big spanner in the works.
People are (rightly or wrongly) questioning the roles of the Executive and the Legislature … even the Judiciary … and finding reasons (good and bad) to criticise them.
But seemingly nobody is questioning the mechanisms by which it all operates at a fundamental level.
Oh, people are questioning, as I said, the roles of the various elements, whether Proportional Representation (PR) is/isn’t a better idea than First Past The Post (FPTP) … the usual rearranging of the deckchairs on the Titanic … but, seemingly nobody is questioning whether there really is any need for political parties and it seems to me that they are the root cause of the very problem.
As noted, we don’t vote for parties, nor is there any reason why we should. In fact, they are not simply undemocratic, they are anti-democratic. They result in tribal tugs of war as each tries to gain the upper hand and impose its vision on the proceedings.
As a result, in a hung parliament (like we’ve had, more or less, since 2010) nothing gets done because no party has the upper hand. This is one of the reasons why a lot of people in the UK like to say that coalitions don’t work and strong government by overwhelming majorities is necessary to get the business of government done.
But not only do coalition governments work in other nations (notably in continental Europe) but the idea that each of the ‘broad church’ parties that vie for power in the UK aren’t, themselves, already coalitions is naive — just look at the ‘party within a party’ phenomenon of the European Research Group that has vied for control of the Conservative party for years now and is the reason why the referendum on membership of the EU was held in the first place.
So, even when we have so-called ‘strong government’ by a party with an overwhelming majority, we don’t actually — it’s just that the fights go on behind closed doors as it were.
In which case, not only is it questionable whether we even have ‘strong’ government but it is increasingly questionable, thanks to the chaos of the Brexit referendum, whether it is even desirable.
What the Brexit chaos has brought into sharp relief is that what we need is not ‘strong’ government (pick any despotic regime you like and the government is strong) but effective government …
So, how do we get it?
PR doesn’t solve the problem … least of all with party lists, which remove the already weak link between the electorate and their representatives that exists in even the current system, whereby parties decide which candidates they will field as representatives for each political subdivision and ‘parachute’ them in — resulting in a, not unreasonable, sense on the part of the electorate that their political representatives are transient, uncaring careerists who know nothing (and care even less) about them or their concerns.
I propose, therefore, that the solution must at least start with the removal from the equation of political parties.
Instead, the electorate votes, as it does now, for a local representative to be their Member of Parliament (MP) … and Parliament, instead of consisting of the special interest groups that it does now, simply works on the basis that legislation is proposed by individual MPs and then voted upon by all MPs.
Each proposed piece of legislation is then either successfully voted for or dismissed and the next item on the agenda is brought forward and voted upon.
At the end of a certain period (a week, say) all the successful propositions are itemised and MPs ‘bid’, as it were, to work on the legislation they feel appropriate/desirable. A vote is held and their bids are successful or not and the successful MPs then go and work on the legislation.
After a certain period (whatever is deemed/agreed appropriate by all MPs) progress is presented to Parliament and a vote is taken on whether it is satisfactory as it is or further work required, amendments proposed and voted upon … you get the idea — basically pretty much as things already work now anyway but without anyone being obliged to vote a particular way if they want to remain members of the power group and have any influence.
As for how MPs might be elected in the first place …
Well, anyone can put themselves forward and, just as now, if they can persuade people to vote for them then they become an MP for a given constituency (region/borough/ward/prefecture/whatever).
Instead of the current FPTP or PR approaches, a variation on the Single Transferable Vote (STV) approach might be used:
People rank their candidate choices on a scale ranging from -n to n (where n is the number of candidates).
So, you first choice goes at the top of the scale, your second below that, the third below that and so on.
The negative aspect of it means you can indicate that you don’t want your vote to contribute positively to a candidate’s result … thus eliminating the danger that they might end up being your MP as a result of your placing them last — i.e. they get one vote from you and that being the one vote they needed to tip the balance against another candidate (your negative vote counts against their total in a way a low positive ranking cannot with a standard STV approach).
Moreover, by ranking all candidates negatively, it is possible to state ‘none of the above’ not merely in such a way that it will actively affect the outcome of the total vote but, furthermore, for you to qualify that statement by, effectively, stating ‘but if any of them have to be my MP then definitely not them’ by ranking a given candidate lower than all others.
Okay, it’s only the germ of an idea and, obviously, it needs fleshing out, but I reckon it has potential to result in a much better form of collegiate governance than the current adversarial system and might, furthermore, be a model for all nations, not simply the UK.
I’ll be thinking about it more and, as time goes by, refining/expanding it but, meanwhile, if anyone has any ideas, I’d be interested in hearing them.
[Related Thoughts]
FUNDING
Some way of ensuring that all candidates are equally financially able to promote their candidacy — otherwise the wealthy will be disproportionately empowered.
IMPROPRIETY / CRIMINALITY
Attempts to influence candidates/representatives in any way other than public submission of a proposition to be a treasonous offence — penalty: lifelong imprisonment with no chance for parole. (There needs to be accountability)
Misuse/Abuse of power a treasonous offence — penalty: lifelong imprisonment with no chance for parole.
PROCEDURE
Bills/Proposals must be single-subject: no introducing unrelated riders/amendments that are unrelated to the matter at hand (you can’t change the subject) … and no filibustering.
