John Jackson (London, Mishcon de Reya & Unlock Democracy): "Setting the People Free" is the title of the book, published in 2005, in which John Dunn explored the long history of the word "Democracy" and its different meanings at different times. At the end of his journey he asked this question, "Why did the Strong select the word Democracy to name the form of government which has served them best of all?" By "Strong" he meant those who have benefited most from capitalism. And the form of government he had in mind is what we know as representative democracy.
Mandy Rice-Davies would have answered: "well, they would wouldn't they?" This streetwise answer gives self interest as the motive whilst leaving the answer to the question, and an explanation of what that self interest is, in the air. John Dunn did the same.
The answer to the question is that the word Democracy has become a brand. It is a brand identified so strongly with images of freedom, economic affluence, opportunity and social well being that no one - certainly no politician - dare fly a flag with another name at their masthead.
As to what the self interest is, the answer is "power." What we call representative democracy allows huge, largely unchecked, power to our politicians, those they feed and those who feed on them - together, they are the Strong. And that power is supported by our self delusion. Lulled by our enjoyment of greater affluence, and a better society in many ways, we are oblivious to the erosion of our liberty, our increasing subjection to rules, our inability to take initiatives and to participate as active citizens. We accept a culture in which the right to dissent is of diminishing value and in which we may not do what we wish unless someone else has said first that we may. We think we are free. We are not: We live in a prison of our own making.
This is partly due to the complexity of a modern industrial society and partly to external threats and pressures. But, in large measure, it is because the political system we have is neither representative nor democratic. We have become accustomed to enjoying little in the way of true representation and less by way of collective self determination. We seem disinclined to fight for something better. This is odd for, as the Power Inquiry discovered, there is widespread disenchantment with a situation in which a government can come to power power on the back of a marked minority of votes, in which people receive the most attention if they live in a marginal constituency during the short period their votes are wanted, and in which manifesto pledges securing those votes are "forgotten" with impunity.
The maintenance of this thoroughly unhealthy situation is due less to the weakness of members of parliament who accept it than to the grip and self interest of the political parties which use it. The reality is that most of us vote for a party with proclaimed policies which appear to favour our economic and social interests. The persona of the party candidate put up to "represent" us is far less significant. We know that, if elected, that candidate will be "whipped" when in Parliament, and that objection to proposals - even when disliked by most of their constituents - will require courage, and could result in exclusion from the party fold. A strange form of representation!
Political parties enjoy considerable, unaccountable power, with no constitutional status. This is worrying. Last autumn Stephen Sedley remarked whilst delivering the annual Mishcon lecture that, when considering the constitutional separation of the powers, it might no longer be realistic to think in terms of the executive (government), the legislature (parliament) and the judiciary (judges). The political parties, and perhaps others, might have to be included. Our constitutional settlement is in a big enough mess. Is this something that we really, really want?
Underneath the seeming public disengagement, even cynical indifference, something is stirring. Fuelled by discontent there is the potential for serious social disintegration or some form of revolt that, in the extreme, could make the reorganisation of the present United Kingdom into a federal United States of Britain look like a parish tea party. We need to harness that latent energy to something that will re-engage and unite us. It needs to be structural, to go beyond the present system adjusting itself. We need a gaol break.
One idea that is discussed increasingly, and which the present government might be moving towards, is the addition of a genuinely deliberative element to our "democratic" arrangements. The adoption of Citizens Assemblies to discuss and propose constitutional changes which can be put to a full determinative referendum, is on the table. Experience in other countries shows that this, properly organised, can work and is a form of political self realisation for "we the people" which has a marked invigorating and unifying effect.
We should have the guts to behave as a nation which values freedom and put the lessons that we can learn from others to the test. The Strong - or most of them - may not much like that. So what!
