Taking the politics out of politics

<!–[endif]–>

Will voters have to work to separate out reform from politicking?

THE news dominance of a single political story for the third week in succession is stunning. It is impossible to avoid MPs’ expenses. The story is still overwhelming the news agenda and maintaining a fascinatingly appalling hegemony as it chokes away the flowering of any alternative focus. Unveiling new names and misdemeanors each morning has only supported the story to a certain point. To maintain the interest, however, it has required more than just the daily stream of sleaze and financial innuendo.

The added subplot over the last week has been the battle of ideas for reforming the constitution. We have found ourselves inundated with helpful suggestions from all quarters on how our democracy might be improved. Each day leading politicians have vied with one another to come up with a solution to the political situation.

It started with Alan Johnson, the possible future leader of the Labour Party (but that’s another story). The helpful Health Secretary reflected a week or so ago that the way to restore trust in politics was by introducing a system of proportional representation into the electoral system. Quite what this had to do with MPs’ standards of conduct and rescuing the country from its current angry impasse was difficult to fathom, but once the floodgate of ideas was opened there was no stopping his political opponents.

David Cameron was next off the mark. Last Tuesday, he used the prerogative of leadership to advance a series of ideas about democratic engagement, promising to deliver “real people power” through a “radical” redistribution of power from Westminster. His ideas included curtailing the power of the UK Government over Westminster by altering the composition of Select Committees, reducing the power of Whips, and also introducing fixed term Parliaments. It was all needed, he said, in order to reduce the power of the executive over the legislature. Later in the week he also endorsed the idea of “recall elections”, whereby certain MPs would be subject to challenge and local re-election in certain unspecified circumstances.

Within 24 hours of Cameron’s speech, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had joined the constitutional convention. He took a hardline approach in arguing that MPs should be blocked from taking their summer holidays until they had completed a major constitutional review and agreed significant changes at Westminster. His ideas included not just reform of MPs expenses, but also changes to the party funding system, the introduction of fixed term Parliaments and the adoption of a system of proportional representation. On top of this he also floated the idea of recall elections for errant MPs, and made the case that those MPs who are standing down at the next election in the wake of the current scandal should not be entitled to large tax free pay-offs worth up to £64,000, depending on their age and experience. To top it all, he couched this bold reform agenda within a premonition that there was but 100 days left to save democracy.

The Prime Minister himself was not immune to the virulent outbreak of constitutional curing either. By Sunday he was giving over a large portion of a major TV interview not to the forthcoming European Elections, but to the case for a Bill to be introduced before the end of this Parliament which would include a legally binding code of conduct as part of a plan to “clean up” Parliament. This was a novel suggestion, emanating from an alternative position where it now seems to the government’s job to hold MPs to account rather than vice versa. Other ideas advocated by Gordon Brown included a Bill of Rights and an examination of voting systems, though without the explicit commitments sought by the other party leaders.

This opportunism is equally true of attempts last week by Plaid Cymru leader Ieuan Wyn Jones to use the current dissatisfaction with politicians at Westminster to strengthen devolved government. On Friday he made the case for holding a referendum soon on full-law making powers for the National Assembly for Wales. His analysis that people are unhappy with their MPs and would therefore welcome the opportunity soon to vote to move swathes of power from Parliament to Cardiff Bay is only partially true. At the moment the public is universally disenchanted with all politicians, not just MPs. When they are in this mood of rebellion against political parties, now is perhaps not the time to trust them to answer any question positively on whether or not to bestow more powers on any group of politicians. But fair play to him for trying.

If we can establish a better democracy that is closer and more responsive to the electorate out of that scandal, the opportunity should be seized, argue the reformists from their own corners. Noticeable in all this constitutional positioning is the desire of politicians to inject their own party political perspectives into the debate. Thus all the ideas that the Prime Minister advocated were ones which chimed with the sensibilities of his own party; while Ieuan, Clegg and Cameron could also be seen playing to their own galleries.

They pretend – perhaps to themselves, too – that their suggestions are altruistic and modernising, portraying their positions as coherent and sensible and above politics. They seek to capitalise on an opportunity where not just anoraks and Liberal Democrats (two not mutually exclusive categories) are talking about constitutional change in order to further their own interpretations and discuss only the angles which matter to them.

Ultimately, however, the politics cannot be taken out of this situation. The agenda being pushed is too broad and too party politically motivated. Thus though it is easy to be quite sympathetic to arguments for Proportional Representation or fixed term Parliaments or full law making powers for the National Assembly, in this instance it is difficult not to believe that their inclusion is opportunistic. There is a real danger that such opportunism might ultimately lead all these idea initiatives to be pushed aside too easily as a series of party political stunts.

The constitution is being challenged from all direction and all parties. If all of these ideas were bundled together it would make a reform programme so broad that by comparison the Chartists would seem moderate and narrowly focused. Yet perhaps that is the best approach now. Everyone recognises that something needs to be done – especially in relation to the behaviour of MPs and their ability to be removed from office – but a series of talking heads from party political leaders is not helping.

Maybe if ownership were relaxed this would help. What may be needed is a genuine cross party vehicle, capable of discussing all these ideas in the round, offering a more open dialogue and a more collective way forward. In such circumstances skilful politicians could use the current crisis as an opportunity for genuine multi-party dialogue and the development of consensus around certain ideas. To achieve this we would need very different political leadership from the daily appearances of party leaders offering their own panaceas to the ills of our constitution. A little less talking and a little more listening would also be in order.

But with a General Election looming, this is not a time when politicians can take the politics out of politics.