The scandal over MPs' expenses has opened up a once-in-a-generation opportunity for democratic reform of the British state. But can public outrage transform into a creative and intelligent demand for change? Anthony Barnett explores the history behind the current crisis and maps out the challenges for democrats and some of the possible ways forward.
It was in 1976 that the office of No 10 was first criticised as an ‘elective dictatorship'. Thirty years later and now the Prime Minister hasn't even been elected to his supreme position, while his First Secretary of State, and arguably the most powerful member of the Cabinet, sits in the Lords. So too do six other Ministers. Perhaps we should be grateful that at least his constituents voted for Gordon Brown to be an MP. Such is the way we are now ruled.
It is putting our democracy, and perhaps British politics itself, at risk. A symptom of this is mass abstention. In last month's Euro election only one voter in eleven voted Conservative and this made them the winners! (One in eighteen voted Labour).
The combination of a weakened democracy and strengthened executive is very dangerous, as, to take just one notable example, our liberties themselves are imperilled by an extraordinary expansion of surveillance and controls that is permitted by the spinelessness of a suborned parliament. This is far from the only area where the controlling instinct of an over-centralised state constantly lobbied by vested interests and unchecked by countervailing power is doing great harm, think of what the City has got away with. Critical coverage in the media has helped limit the damage. But for all its welcome noise this is not much more than the proverbial dogs barking at the caravan.
At last there are signs of a breakthrough. The expenses outrage has aroused the public from its lethargy. The awakening was long overdue. Larger scandals, from the financial crash to mendacious wars, were the real weight that broke the public's trust. The exposure of MPs' house flipping, moat cleaning and attitude of entitlement were just the last straw. Today, voters desire for change could prove irresistible - provided it can gain and retain its full voice.
But the political class is showing every sign that it thinks it can isolate and manage the anger. After calling for more individual empowerment David Miliband, on 6 July, contemptuously referred to the "immediate needs for political and economic crisis-therapy", a term implying that health means returning politics to normal.
He grants that there also needs to be some people's "empowerment". David Cameron also talks up direct democracy and empowering "the powerless". But the signs are that both seek to reproduce rule from above modernised by easily managed hi-tech populism; an approach that points voters back towards submissive catalepsy.
There will, finally, be a general election within a year. It could well prove to be yet again a fight between the two main parties for control over the dictatorial authority of the British state, now as ‘modernised' by New Labour, with total victory once more provided by a minority of the vote. Then, like all undemocratic power, whoever gains it is likely to continue to protect it through a mixture of top down controls and populist manipulation serviced by a narrow and venal political elite. While if the electorate feels there is no realistic offer of a choice to open up the system, continuing negative feedback of massive abstention will confirm popular revulsion yet make the problem worse.
Many are working on how to prevent such an outcome, including a new network around Real Change of which I am member. Its view is that the most important need is for members of the public to self-organise and make their views heard and influential. To be effective, all calls for change need shape, focus and leadership. But this time the driving force must be the public not elite calculation.
I am writing this post to share the challenge of what approach to take to best unlock this energy - and light the positive fuse of popular discontent in a way that can be effective. We want to be represented by MPs who are honest and independent and who support a transparent and open government that checks executive power, protects our liberties and provides for more direct citizen say. Long experience shows this is a matter of altering the way we are ruled not just the people who rule us. The aim, therefore, should be for a British version of a velvet revolution, a great reform process that renews our political system as a whole.
We are in a novel situation and not one determined by the ‘swing of the pendulum' and the usual suspects. To rescue democracy and the rule of law in the era of new technology we can draw on a tradition of protest, insurgency and invention. The principles that none should be jailed without charge and all should be judged by their peers, go back to Magna Carta. It was in Putney, then outside London, where a Leveller proclaimed that "the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he" and thereby made the first recorded claim for political equality in a large nation whatever our economic and social differences, which is the foundation of contemporary democracy. To defend this legacy is to protect a spirit of innovation. Modern liberty and democracy, open to deliberation and participation, should be our aim, if we wish to restore the tradition that has given us our rights and freedoms.
As a general aspiration all this is very fine. The question is how. People are asking, ‘what can I do?' Everyone wants something that could work and not another protest. We don't need wake up calls any more! We need a way of delivering change. Here is an overview of the suggestions already being put forward.
1. Take a single issue like electoral reform and demand a referendum on it at the same time as the election, as the key issue that will open up change. This is the approach of Vote for Change. The attraction is simplicity and audacity. If such a referendum is held, won and implemented then at a stroke the old party system is broken and voters will be counted fairly - what could be more important for democracy? The drawbacks with such a call is that it is aimed at a Labour government which seems to lack the credibility to pass the legislation. Also, an incoming Conservative government may not feel bound by the outcome of the referendum and is likely to be committed to David Cameron's ideas of non-proportional changes to the electoral system. If a referendum succeeds and PR is introduced it will create a more pluralist and representative Commons, but on its own will it be enough and can it attract enough public support?
2. Generate a set of basic pledges for change that are then taken to all candidates to create a reforming parliament. The basic thinking here is that we know the changes we want, the main issue is how to make them happen. Such pledges will draw in a wide alliance, as they could include a referendum on Europe, local government that has financial power, open primaries and more direct participation. The candidates then commit and voters will know who to choose. A drawback is that to be short and appealing the pledges can mean different things to different politicians. It's not clear how delivery is ensured even if candidates are elected. How will all the commitments translate into the necessary parliament majorities given how the system ‘works'?
3. Meet, Deliberate, have a convention, Decide, Influence, Elect and hold to account starting with 1,000 meetings around the UK in pubs or living rooms or as part of discussions in existing networks. This is the original Real Change proposal. It's very ambitious. Its advantage is the hope of considerable popular deliberation, wide public argument, a growing movement and the intellectual excitement of building a novel ‘open politics network'. Its drawbacks are how to deliver the influence it seeks. The pledge policy suffers from the same drawbacks as No 2. In this case it risks being seen as prejudging the outcome of what is declared to be an open, deliberative process.
4. Get Parliament to pass an Act empowering a citizens deliberative convention to decide on a set of major reforms. A Bill exists to do this created by Unlock Democracy with support at the moment of just over 100 MPs, half a dozen of them Tories. Its strength is that parliament is too tribal and self-interested to change the system and this takes reform out of its hands, into those of regular people. It is also simple. But without popular support from outside parliament any such process will be still-born. And how can public support be inspired for the creation of something which then takes all the interesting decisions? Also, lobbying for such a proposal reproduces dependency on MPs.
5. Launch a campaign to "Take back our parliament" This would focus on how it represents us (proportionality, open primaries), its honesty (transparency), defending our liberties (independence), its funding (no corruption). All the big themes thread through this approach including the role of Europe and the need for real local government so that MPs have the time to scrutinise legislation rather than be welfare officers for their constituents. Its advantage is a simple ‘cry' and an appeal to our traditional form of democracy. A disadvantage is that such a call is unlikely to appeal to those, many of whom are under 30, who are engaged by issues of our democracy, rights and liberty but find parliament as an institution remote and uninteresting.
6. Bring about a network of independent candidates committed to implementing a reform agenda. If this was combined with a strong Liberal Democrat presence it could produce a hung parliament and forge a reforming administration. But if the independent candidates are not a new political party they will need to be locally based. How can this be organised? The financial costs are also considerable. The odd thing here is why the Lib Dems are seen so widely as part of the system rather than a force for fundamental change.
7. Organise an on-line force for change on the lines of MoveOn in the US. This is the approach adopted by 38 degrees who launched conveniently into the expenses scandal and found themselves somewhat to their surprise calling for changes in the way we are governed as their first campaign. The advantages of this modern and fast approach is that it can grow very fast. A disadvantage is the risk of being seen as chasing urgent issues and being very centralised. We know it can work when those involved by it represent something inside a large party. But can it work to change a very large country?
Just to read this list is to see one danger: the energy and desire for reform gets dispersed in different initiatives and is frittered away. I support Vote for Change and Unlock Democracy and 38 degrees. And they also seek to reinforce each other. But is it enough to arouse strong and independent public support that is not limited to this or that campaign or party?
Hitherto I have keenly advocated tying candidates down as soon as possible and then holding their feet to the fire (option 3). But the initial discussions amongst those involved with Real Change lacked traction. Before we can debate with credibility the tactics of delivery we need to know there is a shape-shifting force of opinion outside parliamentary politics in the first place.
The prospect of an imminent election next year definitely makes things urgent. What is needed now is to build a demand for change in a way that is inventive captures the imagination of wide sections of the public, encourages open self-organising protest, and brings in the very large civil society associations and faith groups whose members are appalled at what is going on. We have a chance in the run up to the election to create a force of opinion that cannot be ignored and shames the political class with the variety and creative intelligence of the British people.
How exactly will such demand turn into delivery? We don't know yet. It could be through one of the strategies set out above, or a combination of them. Or it could be through new moves that we haven't thought of yet and won't know until they happen. Thus Tim Garton Ash, who is on the Real Change steering committee proposes a Democracy Commission that is half parliament and half human to translate the demand for change into legislation.
My view is that we shouldn't focus on the mechanisms of final delivery. The priority is to turn popular anger into impetus. This is the hard part. The political system is designed to disperse popular dissent into harmless fragmentation.
But our leaders know that the game is nearly up. At the height of the expenses scandal the Independent carried a spread in which the three main party leaders competed with each other to say they were the ones who would lead a huge democratic change in the system. Gordon Brown said he was a longtime supporter of Charter 88 and wants a written constitution. David Cameron pledged to give "power to the powerless". Nick Clegg, who has always called for the system to be replaced but backed the view that it was not a priority for voters, suddenly declared that everything had to be done in 100 days.
Each in their way was aware that what was once a mighty Establishment rooted in British institutions and supported by mass parties, had shrivelled into a narrow political class. You could smell their fear of losing their claim to leadership as the populace howled with derision. Yet they also played for time: we are on your side they said, like all good therapists. Now go back to your "real lives".
In this situation, if voter discontent can be given effective expression it will have the legitimacy and the media support to insist on real change. The most difficult problem, the one that demands organisation and invention, is how to bring people together so that each can see that they are not alone, their anger is healthy and justified and not in need of therapy.
This is the problem Real Change is attempting to solve. The idea is to start to draw people together in a process that is exciting and interesting. If we can then hold a convention that demonstrates the urgency and importance of the issues our parliament has failed to tackle, we can change the terms of political debate and rid Britain of its new corruption.
The starting point, we suggest, is as simple and as modest as talking to someone else about what needs to happen in a way that adds up across the country and is connected to profound and well-thought out arguments. It is up to us to start the democratic process, both in terms of leadership and public participation, that parliament has failed to deliver. How can this best be done? We must make a beginning and find out fast. If you believe you have a stake in this, please join Real Change.
Comments
Even if they wanted to change, the British State, the Establishment and Institutions, are hamstrung by their very Britishness. The irresistible force of public contempt meets the immovable thin red-white-and-blue line of a nervy and insecure state.
I'm surprised OK hasn't covered the Roger Jones report on Welsh Assembly expenses yet. No more mortgages for them!
Yeah i know that this was combined with a strong Liberal Democrat presence it could produce a hung parliament and forge a reforming administration. But if the independent candidates are not a new political party they will need to be locally based. How can this be organized? The financial costs are also considerable.
Nice article..
The modern UK is a rather too centralised state, especialy in England, though it maybe arguable that the same applies to the other parts as well.
Too much power is at the center and can only be loosely controlled by the elected representatives sent to Parliament.
But breaking the link between the representative your constituency chooses is no path forward here. Rather power itself needs to be brought back down to more appropriate levels.
In England for better or worse what used to work was torn up, a system of shire and city councils that had control and where in turn made up of elected representatives. Now their powers are minor and with that the ability of people to control their own local enviroment.
All politics is local someone once said, I forget who.
Thanks: On Toque "The irresistible force of public contempt meets the immovable thin red-white-and-blue line of a nervy and insecure state." Part of the answer here is a referendum on an English parliament, feared by most of the "nervy" political class. I agree. The question is: what will be the outcome of the deadlock between the irresistible and the immovable? The latter hope that by remaining unmoved they will outlast public contempt and turn it into resignation. The foul vapours that will emerge from this we are beginning to witness already.
Brief reply to Michael Macpherson: my concern is that a deliberative element is always emphasised in direct democracy. I believe that regular voters are wise and practical when acting like a jury. But they are capable of being swayed by vested interests that exploit the desire for influence with populism.
OK the English should have a parliament if they want one but do you really think it is a solution to the current and long standing problems with democracy in the UK?
Viewed from the Duchy: great we replace a corrupt, unproportional and distant parliament for the UKs 60,000,000 with a corrupt, unproportional and distant parliament for Englands 50,000,000. Jumping for joy. Swap the UK government for a wee bit smaller English version.
It's simply pure nationalism and that's fine, nations deserve no less, but stop pretending that it's an answer to our problems of democracy.
I'm sure some democracy campaigners cling to the idea of an EP as a -blow-it-all-lets-burn-down-the-house- type solution.
The Cornish Democrat
Anthony Barnett wrote:
"Brief reply to Michael Macpherson: my concern is that a deliberative element is always emphasised in direct democracy. I believe that regular voters are wise and practical when acting like a jury. But they are capable of being swayed by vested interests that exploit the desire for influence with populism."
From the perspective of the people, electorate, a crucial question for decades has been, for how much longer should we allow our common affairs to be run for us by delegation? Giving away your vote once every five years and having no further say on public issues, even new ones which crop up, is not only potentially frustrating (leading to alienation from politicians and apparent “apathy”) but objectively it looks like a poor method by which to govern our – enormously important – affairs.
In the parliamentary system we have been “allowed” to select the people – political party, MPs, likely prime minister – who will decide on all matters of state; health care, social policy, defence and war, environment etc. and even state constitution. If we as electors are wise enough to choose indirectly – for “representatives” – on all of these issues combined, then why as an electorate, acting together from time to time in plebiscite, are we, Anthony, NOT wise enough to decide on one or more clearly defined matters of public governance?
I’ll keep this reply brief, as Anthony did, but will mention “deliberation” in public decision-making. At I&R ~ GB we propose a *deliberative* sort of citizen-led direct democracy. (The Power Inquiry recommended methods similar to ours.) There are built in processes of public information and debate, with plenty of opportunity for parliament, government and experts to contribute, long before any decision is approached. Also, research has shown that (1) taking part in a referendum campaign raises voters’ knowledge of the issue at stake (they may become better informed than MPs) and (2) in places with more participation rights such as citizens’ initiative and referendum, voters’ general knowledge of politics is better, probably a case of cause and effect.
A "dramatic" title, but highly important in search for how to effectively mobilise British public on the job of rethinking Magna Carta and Leveller Proclamations. Politics and many challenges of this era motivate the fine input from Bernet to stimulate and speed-up the rethinking. Like British insiders, observers from outside admire democracy habituation: a good characteristic when reflecting on establishments and politics in Britain. Now idea of rethinking will make both as 'system' components, alongside others even better for the 'new' era.
For a so-called outsider therefore, it wouldn't be out-of-place, if recalled that Britain is a "Unitary State", hence quickly draws attention to most of what are argued in the paper and also comments about the 'local' settings of her politics in relation to 'central' setting. "Direct democracy" arguments are made an issue in many ways, I guess because of the former. It is good not to forget keeping Britain 'unitary' as a state. Barnett did not in anyway say a word about the Monarchy. That was good, but a commentator has tried to make its institution an issue in rethinking change or reform!
Sometimes, it can be helpful to stop and think about why things happen the way they do sometimes! Was it a blessing that Prime Minister Brown did not call an early election? Revealations of recent times and the degree that they cut across sitting parties in parliament, couldn't have come at a better time. So too are the feelings about the war from Blair's era and the unfortunate turns with financial and economic meltdowns as a result, pluss of-course, current challenges culminating in critical reflections on 'civil liberties' questions. Due to democractic practices, no use wishing governments sit in office for ever! At the same time, how much of the failings of the British system might have to be attributed to sheer accidents?
Answer to the question is surely political as well as empirical, historical and also philosophical. There is a massive frustration glossing at the range of comments posted so far. Answers seem to vary in relation to as many individuals as venture to give views. I sympathise with Barnett, because this paper is truly awakening, at the same time as all the seven options given to support what could or should be done to engage politicians and public - [that former would be more responsive to electorates on issues of reform], are qualified. In other words, they are either wanting or inadequate as reform steps for one reason or the other. Note please, the alternative is not to leave what must or should be done undone, well explained by the author's preference and I quote: "I support Vote for Change and Unlock Democracy and 38 degrees".
What suddenly occurs to me after reading and thinking about this initiative-rich paper, appreciating the British population as relatively a highly literate one, if my suggestion wouldn't be seen as too late or previous surveys directly or indirectly on given seven options are unavailable] is simply asking whether a national survey involving them could be quickly conducted? That might give more work, but require resources. Whatever, under the situation, it should be worth-while. A random or any chosen definition of sample of British population: considering what one of the commentators cautiously notes "the British State, the Establishment and Institutions, are hamstrung by their very Britishness" - cited from Toque said...; might prove a needed help for scaling values of the upper, middle and lower classes, alongside other background variable-factors known and often appreciated also for 'targeted' policy reforms and interventions!
Rethinking the reform of British democracy and politics, with Magna Carta and Leveller Proclamations probably in mind, I feel would put things in perspective for change. Alongside the active press or media, the public would, hopefully have a better glimse, broad views to organise or follow election debates, evaluate party programs and also the calibres or personalities of candidates on issues such as referendum, voting system, written constitution or conventions, and degree of multi-party politics- one not likely to rock parliament and government business due to 'coalition' problems. Attitudes to the combination: "weakened democray and strengthened executive", could become clearer thus hence the form of democratic government for sake of ambiquity of situating between both parliamentary and presidential models. Britain is argued thus at times.
A body of experts and professionals should be ready and available in Britain able to embark on a survey of this magnitude, operationalizing all key values of the seven options, which I think are relatively well thought-out and listed in the paper. General election is still a couple of months ahead. A survey, in addition to media activities and works of active and informed groups and individuals, put together would strengthen the processes of grassroot mobilisation, giving voters a sense of being wanted on the job of political participation and reform.
I don't think that Anthony is claiming that an English parliament is an end in itself, rather that a referendum on an English parliament is a means to an end (which happens to be my position).
An English parliament is an entirely different proposition to a Scottish or Welsh parliament, or a Cornish one for that matter, because it is so radical and involves the governance of 85% of the UK population. If the British State asks the English population how they wish to be governed, it is bending its knee to 'the people' in a way that it didn't have to do in the case of Scotland or Wales. Westminster will be putting its future in the hands of the people it governs, and whilst this doesn't necessarily mean an end to parliamentary sovereignty, it will be a paradigm shift in the relationship between Westminster and those it governs.
It's also pretty unlikely that Westminster sovereignty would continue in the same vein in the wake of a Yes vote for an English parliament. There would have to be a transfer of sovereignty, not only to England, but to Scotland and Wales too, away from Westminster. It changes everything in a way that devolution does not, and necessitates a written constitution.
I imagine that Anthony appreciates this and sees an English parliament as a means to an end as much as an end in itself. A referendum on an English parliament is what we might call 'the tipping point' - not only is the momentum for change unstoppable, but the change called for cannot be accomodated without the paradigm shift and radical change at the centre.
If you're a cynic like me then you will probably conclude that this is why they will never allow a referendum on an English parliament, irrespective of public demand.
This comment from Michael Macpherson appeared amongst the first responses to Anthony's article. I've reproduced it here because of a technical glitch. It is this comment Anthony is replying to above: "This comment from Michael Macpherson appeared amongst the first responses to Anthony's article. "Among other reforms which have been proposed Anthony Barnett mentions direct democracy. Then, as he has done in the past, he appears to forget about this effective form of citizen participation in public affairs and politics -- strong democracy -- going on to emphasise some, perhaps not useless, but less effective ones. Anthony wrote, "The combination of a weakened democracy and strengthened executive is very dangerous,".What is direct democracy? The term has been applied to a number of different concepts and methods of democracy, from "the petrol strike" to worker rule, Tory "localism" and "initiative and referendum". What we at I&R – GB propose we have named "citizen-led" or "citizens'" direct democracy -- more detail may be found via http://www.iniref.org/about.html The main proposal is to introduce the initiative, which can lead to referendum ("I and R"). The "recall", also recommended, could be introduced, as could other constitutional reforms, using I and R.In the current (fading) debate about our governance and democracy it is helpful (e.g. with a view to a looming election) to analyse what the UK political parties would offer in terms of direct democracy. We have followed this; an overview (of the three largest parties) may be found at the I&R – GB web site here http://www.iniref.org/latest.htmlOn our "blog" there is an item with updated information about the parties, http://www.iniref.org/blog.htmlComments invited: A supporter recently volunteered to construct an "FAQ" about direct democracy -- please take a look and help us to improve this FAQ, to be found here http://www.iniref.org/faq.docSincerely,Michael Macpherson"
How do we create effective change with so many organisations diluting the (limited) imputus of the public? Particularly when there are many different organisations striving toward the same goal of 'real' democracy, all working in a extra-political capacity if you like, outside of parliament, without a conjoined power base or strategy.
One answer would be to pool the resources and act in unison. Surely working together as one organisation, under one brand as it were, we have a much better chance of engaging as many people as possible.
If Real Change, 38 Degrees and the rest formed a political party, perhaps even in coillition with the Lib Dems and/or The Co-Op parties and other independents, we could formulate a unified national approach which might provide a challenge to the established two party hegemony.
I, for one, would love to stand in my region and I'm sure there are many others, who share our aims who would too, but who may be daunted by the idea of being a independent (as I am).
Established presence on the web and social networking sites put a future party in good stead for grass roots support and exposure.
It has become more than apparent over the past ten years that the centralised government isn't particulalry interested in what we the people, whom lend our sovereignty to be governed, think. They only take notice when the powerful media 'help' us formulate our collective opinions, in a very non-altruistic way of course. Surely holding power from within parliament would give us more of a chance of reformation than throwing stones from the outside and asking very nicely in our wholy British way "please do you possibly think you could perhaps have a look at X".
A truely progresive party with strong web presence would appeal both to the newly enfranchised youth and to the disenfranchised experienced voter.
I believe we have a chance if we try (well we have even smaller a chance if we don't) and once in a positon to do so we can work towards making PR a reality, outlawing lobbying and all the other desperately needed reforms.
People need a viable alternative before the general election, why not organise, unite and be that choice.
Henry Oakley
register your disgust with MPs here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/abolishMPs/
and for REAL democracy:
http://www.pledgebank.com/directdemocracy
For the time being, Cornwall is a part of England. Once a referendum is carried out, then we shall discover whether its peoples wish to remain a county or become a country. I certainly think that referendums on the English Parliament issue and the Cornish county/country issue are long overdue. The UK Government seems afraid to let the people speak!
Post new comment