At the age of 66, this weeks general election will be the fifteenth to which I paid significant attention, and only the twelfth in which I have been able to vote.
I make the point because it makes clear how inadequate the idea that democracy is represented by a universal right for adults to participate in general elections really is. By this definition, democracy only relates to the periodic ability to turn a party out of office, which will happen for only the fourth time in my voting life in this election. That appears to be a wholly inadequate expression of the idea of democracy, even if we extend that idea to the ability to vote in local elections.
Aside from the obvious fact that this ability to very occasionally change the government is constrained by our inadequate electoral system and the ability that our elected politicians have to gerrymander and manipulate it, there has to be a lot more to democracy than just voting, or the concept is entirely meaningless.
Democracy should. I suggest, be about accountability. More than anything else, that should accountability by the government to parliament, and in turn, those in parliament should be accountable to those who elected them. Both conceots appear to be extraordinarily absent in the UK at present.
As demonstration of this, at the most basic level, the last government was contemptuously unaccountable to both parliament and those who elected it because it was incredibly late in preparing its own accounts, and when it did so for 2022 (which are the last set of account available), the National Audit Office had to qualify its opinion on those accounts and express doubt as to whether they represented a true and fair view of the government's activities precisely because of a lack of data being supplied to enable their preparation by so many of the organisations for which the government was responsible. As a result, the accounts were incomplete.
If one of the most basic tasks of government is to command resources for the benefit of those it serves, then the government's inability to prepare accounts showing what resources it has commanded and how it has used them must be one of the surest indications of that failure of accountability and of democracy itself.
As is clear, however, the basic contempt for accountability implicit within this situation is commonplace right across government. For example, not only are freedom of information requests frequently dismissed, or are not answered on the grounds of cost, but when parliament itself seeks to hold the ministers recruited from its own ranks to account, the contempt that they show towards those asking questions of them is quite extraordinary. Whether we look at the performance of ministers at the dispatch box or when addressing Parliamentary committees, ministers frequently evade questions asked of them. The same is true of questions posed by the media. What almost all ministers reveal is that they either have no interest in or seek to disregard the whole concept of accountability. That undermines democracy.
That is a process encouraged by the whipping system, which forces members of the governing party to go along with this. In that context, whipping is deeply anti-democratic.
The lack of accountability of MPs to their electorate also undermines democracy. Few can be recalled. Most seats are usually incredibly predictable as to their party occupant, and the likely events of this week are incredibly rare. As a result, the first-past-the-post system encourages contempt for accountability.
Altogether, then, we have a system of democracy that is rotten, unaccountable and deeply unrepresentative.
Do we really have to suffer this?
Shouldn't we expect better?
And why don't we? Are we all so indifferent? Or are we, like politicians themselves, just past caring?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’s a vicious circle. The unrepresentative nature of UK politics, enables a class of career politicians, who work in establishment interests, that fosters the idea that “they are all the same” and that there is no point voting. This is, of course, what the Undemocrats who govern us, want. Time to break the cycle. On the 4th of July, vote for Independents, Independence, WPGB or Greens.
I’ve seen some excellent independent candidates, which is unusual in national elections. I hope many of them win, so that we can get away from our obsession with parties and move slowly towards the idea that MPs should think and work together rather than keep playing games.
I think many will do much better than independents have done in previous elections but you have to climb a pretty high mountain to win as an independent against a party macine. Personally I would like to see both Starmer and Streeting lose to independents and for Corbyn to win his seat back but a I don’t think that will happen.
The Tories first act of vandalism against accountability was to abolish the Audit Commission which led to many local authorities being five years or more late publishing their accounts.
Might it be that a democracy is only valid when it performs the three basic phases decently?
1) Democratic Input – voting etc. which some might rate at 4/10
2) Democratic Process – clarity, straightforwardness, accountability etc, which some might rate at 3/10
4) Democratic Output – decent domestic, occupational, health, lack of debt burden contexts etc. for all, not least the high proportion of permanently hungry children etc., etc, which some might rate at 1/10
Do we have a “Facade Democracy?
Interesting idea
We have a plutocracy where the plebs vote periodically to provide an illusion of democracy.
I don’t believe people are indifferent, I think people care very deeply, however, there are no mechanisms in the UK’s system for that to translate into action in parliament, because voting transfers power, to the detriment of the voter, and all systems of “representative government” are exclusionary, they deliberately prevent the populace from interfering with elite concerns. Since parliament was never intended to be a representing body, but rather one that sought to regulate and control a population on behalf of wealthy interests, it is only doing what it has always done. There’s an interesting article this week by George Monbiot in which he refers to The Great Leveler, by Walter Scheidel, and which is relevant here, that the price of decreasing inequality has historically been high, and always under attack. Poll after poll suggests that people want a much more caring and equal world than the one we have, however, no amount of voting, or sharing of ideas about how to achieve seems likely to bring it about. I don’t think it is apathy that people have, or a lack of care, my own reading would be that people are more fearful, desperate and despairing, and trying to think of some way to bring about a better world. As I tend towards anarchism and certainly radical equality, from that perspective voting away one’s power, and given the consequences of doing so that we see all around us (including the causing of and failure to address climate change and full-spectrum ecocide), seems an incredibly dangerous thing to do, and renders the voter utterly vulnerable to all manner of harms, many of which you highlight in your blog, should their representative choose not to honour that pledge (as we see with Starmer and Labour, for instance). I agree wholeheartedly with your view that democracy cannot be equated with periodic voting (“democracy” is probably one of the most abused words in any language), that all citizens of any country (and beyond) need to be involved and have a genuine role to play in influencing and making decisions. In trying to arrive at a situation where we trust ourselves and each other sufficiently to share power and make decisions genuinely together, where we are now in the UK and the world generally is anything but a good starting point. The late Mark Fisher, of the times we are living in, in an attempt to capture the appropriate emotional response, suggested the right feeling would be “revolutionary pessimism” – revolutionary to capture the enormity of the task, and to mobilise action, and pessimism to capture the likelihood of success, and to prevent burnout and despair. I think you’ve highlighted before some of the ways in which inequality will reduce via catastrophe (such as environmental insolvency, and assets made worthless by flood risk due to climate change and so on). Whilst any reduction in inequality is welcome, to achieve that only by way of catastrophy, whilst it has much by way of historic precedent, is hardly a preferable path.
Or to interpret that comment in practical terms; no, they don’t care – enough to expend the effort to organise against political parties that are fragile, insecure and corrupt; and the FPTP system that is the key protection for the Westminster Cartel.
The only way to make representative democracy more relevant, and remotely democratic, is through massive decentralisation, by establishing various bottom up structures.
Within non-government organisations some form of participatory management – possibly through co-operatives, possibly via syndicalism, equates to super-federalism.
The more persons active in democratic processes, on a regular basis, then the better informed people will be, and less alienated. Capacity building is pre-requisite.
This kind of super-federalism could not exclude municipal government groups from banding together to exert pressures on centralised regimes, whose role would become more that of co-ordination than direction.
Oversight requires a different set of skills, and mindset, to command and control.
The big joke is that the Lisbon Treaty committed the leviathan of the EU to optimum devolution with decisions being taken at the most local level possible, so ostensibly bottom up democracy, but evidently there was no intention of delivering such subsidiarity given its highly centralised architecture.
We have a comparison between two equally populated northern European countries – one where 32 Scottish local authorities administer a tightly controlled budget from Holyrood, which retains the purse strings, with over 300 Finnish municipalities with double the devolved budgets and considerably more autonomy from Helsinki.
One cannot truly participate in democracy in Scotland, once you have voted, unless you are within the system, except at a superficial level.
On the other hand everyday politics in Finland is far more likely to engage individuals in their self government.
I have seen our system of government described as a “benign dictatorship” (I forget who said it). Apart from the whipping system (which seems almost medieval), the government has total control over the timetable of parliament. The only things that are even debated are what the government chooses. If they don’t want a topic raised then it won’t be.
In addition, the Lords (like them or loathe them) have no authority. Any amendments they make can be reversed by the Commons.
I also find the system of Ministers bizarre. The people in charge of government departments have to be elected MPs. This not only negates the idea that an MP’s primary role is to represent their constituents, but also means the talent pool for the most important jobs to run the country is frighteningly small!
As I understand it, this comes about because of the ancient rule that no-one other than elected MPs may speak in the Commons, so if a qualified professional were appointed they would not be able to report to parliament. Perhaps it’s time to re-think these traditions?
Agreed
Quinton Hogg, Lord Hailsham memorably described our system as allowing “electoral dictatorship”, and he sat on the Woolsack.
@Rick Jones “As I understand it, this comes about because of the ancient rule that no-one other than elected MPs may speak in the Commons…” This is actually untrue. It is possible for people other than elected MPs to speak in the Commons provided they do so behind the bar, a white line on the floor near the speaker’s chair. Indeed the Commons has the power to “call to the bar” any British citizen for this purpose. The last time this happened was in 1957 when the Commons demanded that Sunday Express journalist, John Junior, apologise in person for an article he had written about MPs petrol allowances.
Bernard Hurley,
A minor point, but the bar of the House is actually at the opposite end of the chamber from the Speaker’s chair. This BBC article has a photo: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68032000
@Therese. That’s what I originally thought and then I came across an article that said otherwise so I “corrected” myself. It just goes to show that Plato was right when he said you can’t believe everything you read on the internet.
For democracy to work the demos must both be well informed and well educated. By well educated I do not mean stuffed with facts but educated by an education system that encourages discussion of issues and teaches us not merely to tolerate those who are different or think differently to ourselves but also not to irrationally fear them.
The media has misinformed the people for decades and the education system, through the national curriculum and incessant pointless testing, which ensures that for the majority their last experience of education is that of failure, of failing a test, has ill equipped the young for democratic participation.
Are we past caring about democracy? For all too many the answer is “yes”, but in the present climate who can blame them?
The education system, which on occasion and in some areas has been liberal, has since 1988 become increasingly prescriptive and draconian in operation. It resembles Matthew Arnold’s 1860 prescription for the Populace – to be literate, numerate, and know their place. Not only is failure built into every facet of the system, there are even schools where normal interaction is quashed with silence throughout without a teachers permission. I became a teacher in 1975, and still teach part time. Many students are depressed, withdrawn, ripe for fascist, and worse, grooming in the increasingly virtual worlds many occupy. This morning I counselled a 17 year old with a chaotic home who’d made a mess of her mock exams, her domestic misery doubled by school. Education should be liberating, not damning.
I so agree
That is so incredibly sad.
A reformed ‘constitution’ must have clearly stated rules, embodied in statutes, enshrining the Nolan principles for public office holders (integirity, objectivity, accountaiblity etc) , banning political money donations, corruption in public contracts and in preferrments, honours, appontments to public bodies etc and a means of ensuring they are are enforced.
Whipping must be outlawed (essentially a mafia-type bullying setup) . Apparently the post WWII German constitution (drafted by the UK) makes MP’s responsible to their conscience and to the good of the country and not to any ‘other’ influence.
Much to agree with
Without a complete overhaul accompanied by the implementation of rigorous legislation our mass media (everything from aspects of ownership to accuracy of reported facts) will not only continue to fail at holding power to account but it will actively contribute (as it is already) to the erosion of our democracy along with the pernicious and unchallenged presence of false information that has been so harmful to our national conversations. Partisan and ideological biases are unlikely to vanish from the articles of journalists – or the boardrooms of media organisations but limits can be placed upon them. It seems clear to me that this alone won’t solve our issues of accountability but it is nonetheless a contributing factor that must be addressed in order to achieve some appreciable measure of improvement.
The next five years could prove to be an exceptionally slippery slope with 2029 promising to be a tipping point for both our democracy and country.
I do so agree. The Yougov poll show 50% think ‘illegal migrants’ are a majority or equal in numbers to ‘legal’ ones. Only a THIRD know the real figures.
This is due IMO to at least one headline a week in the Sun. Mail, Telegraph or Express about the subject. Often expressed as FURY AT… Migrants, the EHCR, Gary Lineker etc
Of course. politicians could also educate the people if they had the courage.
The real percentage of ‘illegals’ is less than five percent.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/01/18/677e4/1?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1uEXPuII6cOzjHwcjIT8YND8Rl7RSWy0bT8dBLQo8CxKlHgUhbtzTEFKA_aem_VDivQiErng8jUx1W0Fa6Eg
I don’t like the term “illegal migrant”. One can be illegally residing in the UK, e.g. if, for instance, one’s visa expires or one has had a request for asylum rejected. But as I understand the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, to which the UK is a signatory, it is not, in itself, illegal for an individual to enter the UK.
You are right
@Bernard indeed why I put the term in quotation marks
Political indifference, or being “past caring” could be considered a rational response to an intractable problem in which most individuals have no agency.
An individual vote will change nothing, particularly if we realise that most elections turn on a few key seats and many seats have never changed in decades. Why “care” when politicians represent only their parties in political matters and ignore the voters once elected, particularly those who voted for someone else. “Indifference” means I know it won’t matter which party is in power, the rich will get richer and I won’t.
Besides, I’ve a family to feed, bills to pay, things to save up for, like a holiday in the sun, or I’ve an elderly mother to care for, or another baby is on the way etc. OK, stereotyping perhaps, but why get worked up about politics when nothing you could do will make a difference and when there are plenty things going on in your own life that are more important.
It’s not necessarily indifference or lack of caring, it’s a rational response to help you stay “sane”.
I don’t quite know where to start!
I also lean towards anarchism and radical equality, which may sound curious after spending 16 years in the RAF. What that did teach me, however, is that loyalty is a two-way process; if you expect loyalty from your troops it is only right that you give them your loyalty in return. (Not always a mainstream view in the RAF, I should add). It’s not too far from the “contract” supposed to exist between a Government and the electorate; with the first duty of Government to protect its citizens.
I’d argue that such a contract no longer exists, and that protecting us citizens extends way beyond having effective Armed Forces. (Which also no longer exist, btw)
Protecting citizens, to my mind, encompasses ensuring we are fed; that we are clothed; that we have shelter and warmth. These are the basic physiological requirements of life, as shown in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If people do not have those fundamentals, they cannot move towards the next stage – of having health, employment, property, family and social ability – let alone the higher levels. This Government has failed to provide even those basics for millions of its citizens.
We don’t really live in a “benign dictatorship” – there’s nothing benign about the Government on the way out OR the one on the way in! My History teacher used to say some countries lived under “benevolent despotism”, but that doesn’t really cover it either.
I worked in Germany and have spent a lot of my life in Europe. Last time I was in Berlin the AfD was beginning to rise; every young German was extremely well informed politically, not only about Germany but also about other European countries. They were also able to put current issues into historical context.
There is no such thing as an “illegal” human being. The UK’s recent raft of anti-migrant legislation is mostly illegal under international law, and as Ian and Bernard have so rightly pointed out, puts the UK in breach of our obligations under the UN Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. I submitted a FOI a couple of years ago asking for details of the “safe and legal routes” refugees were supposed to use according to Nutella Braverman. Hidden in the verbiage about “a long and proud history of accepting refugees” was one sentence simply stating that “at the moment, there are no legal routes for someone to claim asylum”. At the same time, the Home Office website announced that someone could only claim asylum when on UK territory. Which refugees could only reach illegally.
Long way of saying not very much. I wonder if it’s become pointless to analyse HOW we got to where we are, or even WHY. Those might be better parked for a while. We’re here, like it or not. It’s what we do next that matters. I don’t believe that people are past caring about democracy – past caring about some things in the short term, yes; they’re beaten down and broken, and not one iota of hope is on offer. But people do care about each other.
Perhaps the issue is that voters under 40 ish have never lived in a genuine democracy in the UK, so they don’t know what it should look like. Someone should tell them.
I try…..
Why would people bother voting or campaigning for parties who insist that their hands are tied by unelected technocrats, bond traders (“the markets”), and something called “the economy”, for the benefit of which folks gotta get poor?
Dejection and disengagement are sane responses – and haven’t been imposed by accident.
This will be the first general election in which my vote might make a difference, as no party in this constituency has a solid majority. I have voted in every previous election since I was 18. I’m now 71. One vote per lifetime is the democracy in which we live.
Indeed…..
That may be true for me
[…] Are we past caring about democracy? Funding the Future […]
[…] Have we stopped caring about democracy? Funding the future […]
I like to think that democracy only ever exists in a few places some of the time. Our representative democracy is deeply dysfunctional. We share FPTP with Belarus and have lifetime unelected clerics like Iran. But I’m also interested in participatory democracy which can be a lot of fun.