This is the first of a series of responses to Anthony Barnett's post on the possible strategies for democrats post-expenses.
Anthony Barnett > Peter Oborne
Anthony is correct to say that the political system is broken, that the expenses scandal is a manifestation of this, that trust in politics is now smashed, and that the Political Class nevertheless believes that the situation has returned to normal ie the ‘mixture of top down controls and populist manipulation serviced by a venal political elite' described by Anthony. But I would go further than this analysis and add that unless we remedy the structural crisis at the heart of our public life some kind of political accident will take place - the Westminster equivalent of Black Wednesday in the City. This may be a return to the violent, extra-parliamentary politics of the 18th century, accompanied by a near total collapse of traditional liberalism and the emergence of a hard, populist right.
The mission to mend our politics is therefore commendable and urgent. I also agree with Anthony's prescription - reengagement with civil society, honesty, independence, accountability. He then deals with a host of competing objectives. My feeling is that all our energies should focus on one objective only: parliament, cleaning it up and making it more democratic. There is nothing peripheral about parliament: it has always been at the heart of British freedom, democracy and governance.
That doesn't mean that we can't do the other things - ie an online force for change such as Move-on (though when I examined Move-on during the Kerry campaign five years ago it had certain rather sinister aspects). But they should be all directed to the same place - ie parliament. It is also obvious that all these extra-parliamentary organisations - 38 degrees, Real Change, openDemocracy have to work together if they are to be significant and produce massive change.
Finally, Anthony raises the question whether we should focus only on the expenses scandal or the more general failure of the system. Clearly it is the more general failure - which includes of course the purchase of British politics by large corporations, the anti-democratic control of foreign policy by the United States, the emergence of sophisticated techniques of mass manipulation drawn from the advertising profession - which is the more significant. The expenses scandals are merely (as Karl Marx might put it) epiphenomena.
Comments
I think you've linked to the wrong 'Move On'.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Anthony's 7 options is an excellent clarification of the choices we face. I also agree with Peter Oborne that the rehabilitation of parliament is critical. Attacks on parliament as a meaningless charade from both the left and the right were a key part of the delegitimisation of liberalism in the Weimar Republic, echoed contemporaneously in France and Italy especially. If people give up their faith in parliament, right-wing 'solutions' will be quickly offered.
So the question is how to go forward: how to combine a meaningful expression of public opinion with the prospect of real change within the actual system. I would argue for an iterative process: start with a series of citizen juries, say one per region, to generate a shortlist of ideas to feed into public meetings, and then synthesize those results back into a citizen jury panel. Or, start with just the pure local meetings, but then work up from the first round to a more focused agenda for the second round. As Philip Pettit has
pointed out, people can participate as 'editors' as well as 'authors': forms of participation will have to be diverse if the whole process is going to be both inclusive and productive.
It's crucial that parliamentary candidates and parties are involved if the process is to culminate in passing actual reforms. The 'pledge' for candidates
and parties could be to respond to the process at specified intervals: 'Tell Us Where You Stand' by posting on parliamentary reform and civil liberties (1) on
the opening day of the party conference, (2) in the aftermath of the 1000 Real Change meetings, (3) in the aftermath of the election itself. If the postings are boilerplate or indifferent to what's come about as a result of the process, it will be obvious very quickly. Candidates could also be challenged to
host/attend a Real Change meeting themselves.
Personally I am very wary of this constant campaign for change and reform which in some ways seems to lack an appreciation of history and a disdain for our traditions and that history. Not everything on the continent is wonderful and you all live in a democracy that has been the most stable in Europe. Another reason for being wary is that some of the voices who are the most shrill are the same voices who were involved in New Labour in one way or another. That must bare some responsibility for some of the mess we have now. That being said, I do want to try and sort out some of the mess. I would start by reforms to Parliament, but I favour a far more gradual approach. The House of Lords would be the very first item. I want an elected Lords and I want the repeal of both Parliament Acts. This last bit is critical. This would rebalance Parliament and this is one of the major problems we have. The Lords must be elected on a different basis to the Commons and that is open to debate. Next I would answer the 'West Lothian' question. That wont be popular with Labour. Leading on I would have major boundary reform and reduce the Commons by a third. That will do for starters. Oh and I would also have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I notice no one is interested in one of the major problems with democracy across Europe: the vampire that is the EU.
"all our energies should focus on one objective only: parliament, cleaning it up and making it more democratic. There is nothing peripheral about parliament: it has always been at the heart of British [English] freedom, democracy and governance" (i.e. from before there was a Britain, politically).
Reform of a monolithic 'British' parliament only, or real democratic reform involving separating out the English and British bits of it?
It amazes me that we continue to harbour the belief that we live in a Democratic state when, so obviously, we do not.We have no democratic rights save for a vote, which does not buy us the 4-5 years of advocacy for our ideals which we delude ourselves it might - or that it should.
These are not 'our' MP's at all. If they were then their reason for being would be to represent us and our views. I suggest that this is last on their minds.
First and foremost they are looking after no 1, and (as this is a lucrative business) they are organised into career pyramids of Party power. Looking after no.1 therefore means working hard in their Party pyramid. But looking after no.1 also means following any other diversion that has rewards and benefits. Rewards and benefits that they just don't get doing what we actually expect of them.
Foreign trips, lucrative consultancy, advisory roles: They are all bribes. They are all anti-democratic.
It is a fact (although worthy of debate) that companies do not have votes. Therefore if we were truly democratic one should expect a total imbalance of legislation in favour of citizens over companies. Clearly that is not the case. Clearly too its not votes or voters that create policy!
Our vote and the election is a just an inconvenience to be hurdled and then forgotten for a few years. Democracy is a mantra that they mouth but do not believe.
If we wanted democracy we might start by banning, outright, all political contributions, or contributions to politicians in every form. We might continue by disallowing any politician from appearing in the colour, banner, style or words of a Party. That way the politicians might actually have to work to say who they are and what they are going to do for ME, or you. We should continue by diarising and publishing all meetings by our politicians in the local newspaper of their constituency - including their attendance and voting on every issue.
Post new comment