Chewing the fat of disgust and deliberation
Bubble — By Iestyn Davies on February 23, 2010 7:00 am
Is democracy going backwards because of voter apathy?
DURING the height of the MPs expenses scandal, I was at community summer fayre. You know – the kind local groups organize and you feel you should really attend in support of the greater good. I was queuing for the obligatory burnt burger and shriveled sausage alongside a Welsh MP. When they had picked up their lunch an anonymous voice from the back of the line shouted out: “Make sure you get a receipt for the burger!” There was a brief, tense moment and the elected member eased away from the group to choke silently on a piece of gristle, as the rest of the political classes endured a feeding frenzy of alleged sleaze and corruption.
Since then, thanks largely to The Daily Telegraph, the subject has resolutely refused to die. This has happened alongside a continued distrust in politicians, due in large measure to the farce that has become the saga of Iraq enquiry. However, the disengagement shown in formal political activity is probably the single largest challenge our democracy has faced since the vote was extended to women, and remains something that predates both Iraq and MPs expenses.
Depending on who you speak to, the current anger felt by the public will either bring people out in such numbers that returning officers will be overwhelmed by ballot papers arriving by the skip full or, well, you know the alternative scenario well enough. But with months to go to the General Election and the prospect of possibly two referenda as well as an Assembly election within a relatively short period of time, are we asking too much of voters? In a time when fewer people can be bothered to vote at all why do we, as political activists in one shape or form, bother asking them to vote even more?
POWER2010 will attempt to set the political agenda
The POWER2010 campaign online ballot has just closed. Its aim was to get the public to identify their top five priorities for electoral reform in the UK. We are currently waiting for the final count and the key election pledges – from the campaigns perspective at least – to emerge. The belief is that the more we ask the public to engage in the lead in to a political process the greater their engagement will be with the final ballot itself.
The process was kick started by a deliberative democracy event in London in early 2010 and will deliver five clear challenges to all political parties in the run up to the election in May or June. The likely outcome of the online poll is emerging as it approaches the final days. All the proposals, including those emerging as the clear favourites, are viewable online. The top five priorities are all fairly populist although fairly substantial ones nonetheless. Just ask any Welsh MP how they feel about voting reform on England-only matters. Around 100,000 had voted by last night.
Looking back at the event in January that kick started the campaign, one of the participants noted: “People do care a great deal about politics and are prepared to put a lot of effort into debate. They are prepared to listen carefully to other points of view, and to consider the facts, even when they don’t agree with the conclusions reached.”
This is a comment you might expect from someone taking part in a deliberative democracy event. But the joke in the burger queue, and countless conversations I am sure that we have all had in recent months, has ensured that politics is on the agenda in a way that can only be associated with the seismic events of the winter of 1979, the subsequent election, and then later in 1997.
Despite the fallout that will inevitably continue until print media decides it won’t sell any more papers on the subject, the likelihood is that our democracy won’t quite fall over the edge of the cliff. In fact, the main danger is that nothing really will change in the way that we approach the process of politics. Like any other form of human activity, the way we behave in this field forms its own micro-world, its bubble or – if you want to throw a social scientific term at it – its own ethnography emerges. One which is not shared by the majority of people who nevertheless, as the contributor cited earlier pointed out, are actually quite interested (or should that be disgusted?) by the current world of politics. Ultimately, for there to be meaningful change we have to do things differently.
The All Wales Convention began a process of dialogue with the people of Wales over the future of the constitutional settlement. It correctly concluded that asking people whether they preferred option A to option B was probably a bit of a turn off. It was after all, at best a consultative event and not a truly deliberative one, examining the possibilities offered more widely by a further transfer of powers from Westminster to Cardiff Bay. The First Minister’s well presented attempts to clarify the challenge on Sunday morning on the Andrew Marr show was a step in the right direction. Any future vote on constitutional change needs to be placed in a far less political frame. More importantly, as the electorate moves away from the traditional party political hegemony to a more heterogeneous politics, it cannot be presented in the current form in a politicized way. To date, avoiding party political bias in the debate has been largely due to the need for party political survival and especially so at the margins of both the Labour and Conservative parties.
Now, as we begin to see the impact the ongoing saga of political trust has had on the electorate, the consensual politics that characterizes the party political debate on further powers, must be extended to the wider electorate. True deliberative processes must emerge from the current distrust in politics or perhaps more accurately the political class. It cannot be business as usual. Whatever the outcome of the election, it cannot be a case of a few new faces occupying the same roles as the old faces. In other words we cannot expect the old processes to deliver new results.
POWER2010 will continue in Wales until the week after the election and will be a focus for the widest possible civic engagement during the election. The test that our democracy faces, both in Wales and in the UK, is to engage more people in more democracy. Yes, we can all agree on that, but at a time when people’s appetite for the current diet of party political stodge, has reached satiation only a new democratic offering is likely to be in anyway enticing. If it doesn’t emerge, that local MP won’t be the only one left choking on gristle.
Tags: 2010 General Election, All Wales Convention, expenses, public debate
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
12 Comments
Disenchantment comes from the perception by people that all politicians want is their vote. Once they have your vote (after much kissing of babies) they go off and do whatever the hell they like, whether you like it or not. So you vote for a government, who then brings in ID cards, or puts a nuclear powerstation in your backyard. You complain – and get told (basically) “if you don’t like it you can vote again in another 4 years”. Makes you wonder what is the point.
I don’t think people ARE disenchanted or unengaged by politics though. Look at poll-tax demos. G8 demos. People risking life and limb sitting under bulldozers that are going to rip through woodland. Protest, right? Well yeah, but that’s real engagement with politics. Politicians are supposed to be representing the wishes of their constituents, but they don’t, they get whipped into representing the wishes of their party bosses. Party bigwhigs who endorse expenses swindling (until they get found out), socially engineer societies by creating “demand” for mass immigration in times of recession, rolled-up trouser-legs and union bribes. People are sick of it. Politicians don’t represent the people, so the people have to represent themselves.
I’ve been a voter since Thatcher won in 1987, and I’ve never felt represented by any of the political parties or systems. It’s only since the Senedd was formed that I’ve felt somehow connected to politics. I still don’t feel that represented (Plaid aren’t nationalist enough for me!!) but politics is a lot closer to me than it has ever been.
So how to engage people in politics? Listen to them. No, don’t just be seen to be listening, but actually listen and follow through. If 67% of people are against a war don’t just bloody go ahead and do it anyway (and then send in the riot police if people protest) You’re elected representatives, not dictators. But as long as you act with impunity, megalomania, and with political career before constituents, then “alternative” politics will be the thing that engages people, not the mainstream.
Good article.
I think Al makes some very relevant points about the growth in single issue campaigns, of which I hope political parties take far more heed of. For this to truly work, I do party politics has to become more pluralistic, which in simple terms means they need to be willing to work together.
I would add that the report today about Communities First is another example of disconnect that people feel. Even with the most well meaning of intentions, the expertise involved and even the hard and fast cash available, people still dont feel a widespread involvement or even see such programmes in their everyday life.
Part of why electoral and democratic reform is so important is that it begins to alter the state of politics. That is not to say that parties will not stop bickering, they have every right to highlight difference and their own values. However, people do actually prefer parties working together on the things they agree on, which is what most people do in their everyday lives.
I actually think the devolved institutions have made inroads into this, the petitions committee is an excellent move in this regard. But you do wonder that even with the seismic shock of expenses, politics goes into hiding, rather than coming out willing to change. This is not a party political point, but the first competitive election in a decade makes sweeping reform difficult. A government with a large majority might well have been able to radically alter things along the lines of Power2010.
In terms of individual MPs. I would keep the communications allowance but make sure it was used for these statutory demands;
A parliamentary leaflet (two a year) making clear of all expenses.
A quaterly public meeting, where MPs, AMs and Councillors face the public, who can ask whatever they like.
A recall option which would mean that if 250 (?) local people called for a public meeting, an MP would have to attend.
I would also look at some sort of deliberative local democracy option whereby the public can vote on an action (say a private members bill or a local issue campaign) that they wish the mp to carry out.
I know people may say ‘well they wont read/attend’, but the fact is that a statutory requirement, on a set date every three months is a chance for the local press and all involved to publicise it.
Some off the cuff ideas.
“So how to engage people in politics? Listen to them. No, don’t just be seen to be listening, but actually listen and follow through. If 67% of people are against a war don’t just bloody go ahead and do it anyway (and then send in the riot police if people protest) You’re elected representatives, not dictators. But as long as you act with impunity, megalomania, and with political career before constituents, then “alternative” politics will be the thing that engages people, not the mainstream.”
67% of people or not that far off are in favour of the death penalty should politicians listen to them . Is it not more important to be frank, let people know where you stand and stick to it not just follow prevailing attitudes.
People want to know that when they go into the voting booth, they have a choice. They want to know it makes a difference. If politicians are not honest and standby their opinions and not what they think the electorate want to hear, they cannot have this choice.
Yeah, but the death penalty isn’t a current paper passing through parliament. If the govt comes up with a crazy scheme, and polls suggest no-one in the country is in favour of it, then it should be scrapped. Re: war, ID cards etc etc
“If politicians are not honest and standby their opinions and not what they think the electorate want to hear, they cannot have this choice.”
Precisely why parties like Plaid and the SNP are on the rise (and, perversely UKIP and the BNP). You vote for Labour or the Tories, however, and you have no real idea what the hell their opinions are, because they change on a weekly basis. When you voted Labour four years ago did you do so on the understanding they would DNA database you, nick you for taking photos of Swansea Marina, bring in airport scanners, track your every email and website visit etc etc ?? No, and Labour are the last party you would imagine doing that. Tories you could probably understand, and would vote for on that understanding.
So yeah, politicians should be upfront with their beliefs and ambitions, their manifesto should be a contract that they deliver to the letter. But it never happens. So the electorate is left second-guessing.
Membership in political parties offers candidates and later incumbents shorthand on their views when campaigning in elections. The electorate easily identifies with this shorthand and vote that they prefer into office. However, as a consequence, these MPs also have to support the party platform.
This is the easiest way to organize liberal representative democracy.
Voter apathy and anger in their representative should be expressed in non-violent protests and later in voting in a new representative. Reform by holding reliable timely elections, once every two or four years. Allow the electorate to recall an AM or MP when enough signatures are met on a petition of recall.
The UK electorate voted a disarmament party into government in 1935, and an appeasement party into government in 1937. These elections clearly represented the non-confrontational and anti-war sentiment of the UK electorate, but with hindsight we can definitively say that the majority was wrong on both accounts, for had any government confronted the Nazi dictator in 1935, millions of lives would have been saved. Clearly the majority of the electorate in these circumstances was wrong.
Just food for thought.
The question of the Jus ad bellum against Terrorism is unquestioned, and the conflict raging in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan deserve our attention and commitment. Only the American invasion of Iraq muddied the question of War against terrorism. An inquest into Blair’s role misleading the UK Parliament should be held and if found deliberately doctoring the evidence he should be held liable.
I like Cyntaf’s reform outline:
1. A parliamentary leaflet (two a year) making clear of all expenses.
2. A quarterly public meeting, where MPs, AMs and Councillors face the public, who can ask whatever they like.
3. A recall option which would mean that if 250 (?) local people called for a public meeting, an MP would have to attend.
Hi – thanks for the feedback on the article. It’s great to have considered opinions on a blog! Since the article was published the 5 pledges selected by over 100,000 votes from the public have been decided. They are:
1. Introduce a proportional voting system.
2. Scrap ID cards and roll back the database state.
3. Replace the House of Lords with an elected chamber.
4. Allow only English MPs to vote on English laws.
5. Draw up a written constitution.
The next stage of the process is to encourage individuals to sign up to the pledge and the to see how many PPC do the same. There is no doubt that the 5 will raise a fair few questions within the established parties. However, the pledges, as has been pointed out in the discussion is only a small part of the process of encouraging greater deliberation in politics. It strikes me that one of the most significant developments in the life of our democracy in Wales as been the removal of the single institution of government in favour of that of the separate legislature and executive. Confrontation rather than deliberation then is the order of the day – or is it? Can devolution, as we now have deliver anything other than the same old same as?
Iestyn,
I dont speak for anyone but myself, but I fail to see any Plaid candidates NOT signing up to those 5 (maybe the details of a constitution), or indeed they already campaigning on those things naturally anyway.
In fact, I only see Labour against more than two.
Labour – against 3 (ID Cards, English votes, PR)
Lib Dems – maybe against one (english votes)
Tories – against 2 (Lords and PR, maybe constitution?)
Happy to be corrected on that.
Marcus, Lib Dem position on devolution for UK is a federal one, therefore they’d be comfortable with English only votes.
So Plaid and Lib Dems on same territory again. Which reminds me…
http://waleshome.org/2009/08/cant-you-two-even-try-to-get-along/
Marcus – I think your analysis begins to take us to the nub of some of these challenges a whether or not individuals or parties collectively will decide. The logic of English votes (dubbed EVEL by some!) as expressed by people I have spoken to seems very similar to much of the discussion around further powers to Cardiff Bay. The biggest challenge to me personally speaking, is that it has given me reason to ask people what they think is important rather than telling them what I feel is important – and I’m not a ‘proper’ politician!
What is the Plaid ‘official’ position on EVEL then?
Darren.
I think it’s safe to say I have both privately and publicly made it clear that plaid and lib dems, if they get 30 seats, could form a pretty coherent progressive government. That is my own view…
Marcys (sic) you have indeed, and did so most eloquently when my article was first published too.