Local News

30 September 2008 by Zac Goldsmith for the Social Market Foundation

Politicians must share power - or lose it

Politicians must share power – or lose it


Is Britain democratic?

In the sense that we, the people, still have the right to remove our government once every few years, Britain is a democracy. But I believe that the time has come to acknowledge that our current form of democracy is too crude and inadequate to serve properly a sophisticated 21st century society.

Let’s be honest: once elected, our MPs, councillors and other holders of public office habitually ignore the wishes of those who voted for them – and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The public will does not prevail in any meaningful sense. There is no on-going ‘rule of the people’, to take the commonly accepted definition of the word ‘democracy’.

This gulf – between promise and reality – angers people far more than it did in the past, and no amount of highfaluting talk from politicians about Britain’s long-established traditions of representative democracy can conceal the fact that there is growing friction between people and power.

No one would dispute that there are some matters that should never be subject to collective decision-making. Certain individual rights are sacrosanct. The residents of a town can’t vote to evict their neighbours, a la Big Brother, for example. But there is broad agreement that many other decisions are made best through a genuinely democratic process.

A crisis in the making

Something very significant, and potentially dangerous, is happening to British politics. It is a complex phenomenon with multiple causes but its essence is this: people are losing faith in politicians and the political system as a whole. This is not a transitory or superficial development; it runs very deep, and it is getting observably worse.

Evidence for this profound disillusionment is now so overwhelming that few commentators even try to dispute it. The hard facts were brought together two years ago by the Power Inquiry and its groundbreaking report, Power To The People. This was the largest and most comprehensive investigation into the state of British democracy for a generation. It was conducted by high-profile and heavyweight public figures and took evidence from around Britain. The report made grim reading, even for those inclined to take a complacent view of the public mood. It is worth quoting:

“Power’s own research and experience over the last eighteen months has established that the level of alienation felt towards politicians, the main political parties and the key institutions of the political system is extremely high and widespread.”

People are switching off from democratic politics in unprecedented numbers. Not out of apathy, but from a conviction that their voice is not being listened to. From 1945 until 1997, the average turnout at General Elections was over 76%, peaking at 83% in 1950. At the last two General Elections, just 60% of the electorate voted. At the 2005 election, only 37% of those aged 18-24 bothered to take part. Compared to the recent past, far fewer people identify with, let alone join, the main political parties.

Confidence in politicians and our system of government is shockingly low. A MORI poll in 2005 found that only 20% of people trust politicians to tell the truth. A Hansard Society poll found that only a third of people believe the “present system of governing works well”.

The anecdotal evidence is equally depressing: radio phone-ins fizzle with rage and contempt for the political classes; election canvassers report weary cynicism on the doorsteps; ‘politician’ stands alongside ‘traffic warden’ and ‘estate agent’ as a profession it is almost mandatory to despise.

People, in their grim determination to find a way of circumventing the presumed Establishment cartel at Westminster – “They’re all the same”, is a commonly heard lament – are increasingly resorting to voting for fringe parties with policies and agendas that would be disastrous for Britain. In the last decade we have seen extremists elected to office in unprecedented numbers from dubious organisations like the BNP. How many more votes will the likes of Nick Griffin have to receive before we wake up and accept the need for radical action?

Society has changed but politics remains stuck in the past

Britain’s Parliamentary democracy was already well-established two hundred years ago and remains more or less intact today. The franchise was gradually extended until it became universal with the granting of women’s suffrage in the earlier part of the last century, but since then, reform has been comparatively minor, with the arguable exception of devolution.

But society has changed. In the 19th and early 20th century most adults were uneducated, uninformed and had little experience of the world beyond their locality. That world no longer exists. The talent gap between ruler and ruled has shrunk. The public today has unprecedented access to information. Most school leavers go into further education. Almost every aspect of our lives has been transformed by social, economic and technological change, but the way we make collective decisions remains stuck in the past, hopelessly outdated. We are still expected to hand over political choices to an exclusive group of professional politicians who cannot meaningfully be held to account, except for one day twice a decade.

And what is the result? Literally thousands of political decisions have been made in recent years that defied the clearly expressed wishes of the majority. Anyone who wants to understand why politics is broken should look no further: the crisis of legitimacy we see today is the cumulative effect of a million expressions of outrage and perceptions of injustice on the part of decent, law-abiding people who have watched their elected MPs and councillors voting the ‘wrong’ way and asked “Why should they decide this for us, when we could do it ourselves?”

Direct democracy – an idea whose time has come

There is a solution: a simple mechanism that, if made an integral part of the democratic process in Britain, could both improve the quality of decision-making at national and local levels and restore the public’s faith in politics. That mechanism is the referendum.

The use of referendums (or referenda) is something that fills many politicians with unease and even dread. Some MPs deploy Burkean dictums about owing the public their judgement, not obedience to their opinion but the truth is rather more straightforward: they like being in charge and don’t want to be second-guessed by those they regard as amateurs. It is a battle that politicians are destined to lose, the only question is how much damage will be done before they realise it.

One of the growing number of campaigns backing the greater use of referendums – also known as direct democracy or citizens’ initiatives – has set out how it could work in practice:

• Each year, on Referendum Day, people would be able to vote on issues of concern, both national and local. To trigger a referendum on a particular topic, 2.5% of the electorate would need to sign a petition. This would mean that, for national issues, a million signatures would be required to trigger a ballot. For local issues affecting, say, a district council, this would require around 4,000 people to back the proposition. Referendum Day would be held on the same day as the local elections.

• The Electoral Commission would need to agree the wording of the question on the ballot paper to ensure that the question was fair and balanced. The Commission would also be given new powers to check the validity of the petition and the number of signatures.

• People would need to sign petitions in person and the signatures to trigger a vote would need to be collected in a one-year period.

• There would be strict limits on the amount of money that could be spent on referendum campaigns and these would be the same for those supporting and opposing the question on the ballot paper.

• Balance in TV and radio coverage of the issues under discussion would be a legal requirement, as well as fair access to other media coverage for each side.

This programme, set out by pressure group, Our Say, would radically improve British politics. One of the most significant benefits would be the greater legitimacy given to controversial decisions. Under the current system, many people believe that their view on a particular issue is a majority one but they have been effectively swindled by votes in Parliament or the council chamber conducted by politicians who refuse to listen. Under direct democracy the losers at least have the important consolation of knowing that they were given the opportunity to make their case to their fellow citizens on a level playing field.

There is a basic question that determines our level of satisfaction with the democratic process: who owns the political system; the citizens or the politicians? If most people believe that the answer is the latter then we are in trouble. My support for direct democracy is rooted in principle but reinforced by a highly pragmatic insight: a real sense of ownership over the decision-making process is crucial to a achieving and maintaining a stable society.

Contrast that with the situation in Ireland, where the electorate recently defied the political establishment by voting against the Lisbon Treaty on reform of the European Union. Whatever view one takes on matters relating to the EU there is little doubt that the fact that a referendum was held in the first place will have reinforced the perception in the Republic that the Irish people enjoy real control over their national affairs. That is surely healthy – and something all countries that wish to be regarded as democratic should aspire to.

The case against direct democracy doesn’t add up

There are several arguments put forward against the use of referendums. Some opponents argue that the public is too fickle and irresponsible to be trusted with important decisions. Others warn that allowing referendums would give too much power to the media, especially the tabloid press. A related contention is that powerful interest groups will use their influence and financial muscle to win any referendum. Yet another claim is that the complexity of legislation means that only Parliament is competent to adjudicate on its merits. On closer inspection, none of these arguments against direct democracy stands up to serious scrutiny.

To say that people can’t be trusted to reach intelligent decisions is, in reality, an argument against democracy itself. Indeed, it was used by Parliamentarians in days gone by to oppose every extension of the franchise, including votes for women. This patronising elitist disdain can be found both in the golf clubs of Henley and the organic cafés of Islington, united in fear of swarms of gum-chewing, shell-suited “chavs” voting to make Kylie president-for-life, or for the return of hanging.

The related ‘rule by tabloid’ canard is equally fallacious. In reality, newspapers have far more influence over 650 MPs than they ever could over a notional audience of 60 million. In recent years every government has quailed before the baleful gaze of Rupert Murdoch and squirmed beneath the unforgiving knife of Paul Dacre. Most MPs are only too keen to court influential journalists. The penalty for falling foul of a newspaper can be severe. Some editors will not limit themselves to criticising an MP who has crossed them for the offence alone. They regard it as legitimate to attack every aspect of their prey’s behaviour and character. Direct democracy would actually reduce the power of newspaper proprietors and editors to impose their agendas on fearful governments and MPs. With an unblackmailable electorate of millions calling the shots, the tabloids would be confined to their proper role: shouting from the sidelines.

The same is true of special interest groups. The more opaque the decision-making process, the better they tend to like it. Ask any lobbyist whether he would rather persuade a government minister, over an expensive lunch, to insert a clause into a bill, or instead seek to win support – in the face of intense public scrutiny – for a proposal in a referendum. The answer will invariably be lunch with the government minister.

As for the idea that the complexity of legislation is a bar to decision by referendum, it is wrong in two key respects. The House of Commons already subcontracts detailed scrutiny of a bill that comes before it to a committee stage where a smaller group of MPs examines it in depth. Eventually there is a final vote on the bill in each house of Parliament. Obviously, the bulk of legislation would never be subject to direct democracy but if the matter was of sufficient public interest there is no reason why a referendum could not be held after these final votes but before the Royal Assent.

This leads onto a further point: a referendum, even one dealing with a complicated subject, would prompt precisely the kind of public engagement that politicians are desperate to encourage. Knowing that their vote would have an impact on the future would bring out the best in people and raise the quality of debate, often with surprising results.

The greatest fear that irresponsible opinions would always win the day – is not borne out by practical experience. Many states in the US have direct democracy – so-called propositions – and what is clear is that the results betray no overall ideological direction. For example, voters have backed the medical use of marijuana and opposed relaxation of restrictions on gambling. And the efforts of special interest groups in America to cajole voters into backing their preferred ballot measures has, more often than not, met with failure.

But perhaps the most telling recent example of the ideological unpredictability of referendum results happened outside the United States. In June, a nation with a reputation for insularity, xenophobia even, was asked to tighten its citizenship laws, making it harder for foreigners to gain naturalisation. Much to the surprise of international commentators, the proposal was rejected by a margin of almost 2 to 1. This country can justly claim to be the most democratic on earth: Switzerland.

The Swiss model

It is no coincidence that Switzerland has one of the highest scores on the so-called Happiness Index, used to measure how content people are in different countries. One of the key determinants of happiness is a sense of control and ownership over one’s own life. The Swiss model of government, which is over 150 years old, gives citizens the final say over important decisions. At town, cantonal and national levels, democracy is king – and it works. Not only is Switzerland one of the most prosperous nations on earth; it is also one of the most stable.

Central to Swiss democracy is the Initiative. Citizens vote not only on issues that the government chooses to place before them (the British model) but, by gathering enough signatures, on the issues that they deem appropriate. In Britain, a voter in a referendum (or a by-election) is allowed briefly into the citadel of power. In Switzerland, voters have a profound sense of ownership of their nation. Even though Switzerland has a greater natural division between its citizens (the linguistic and geographical boundary between the French-speaking west and German-speaking east) than anything in the UK, civic and national harmony is maintained and enhanced by common ownership of the democratic system.

When will our politicians see sense?

There are clear signs that our politicians are waking up to the scale of discontent caused by Britain’s democratic deficit. There are even indications that they are ready to look at direct democracy as a possible way of restabilising the system but, as always, the devil is in the detail.

David Cameron, in a wide-raging speech at the launch of the Power Report, accepted many of its proposals. The Conservative Party’s Quality of Life Commission (on which I served) specifically embraced direct democracy, particularly at a local level on issues such as planning and proposed new supermarkets. A growing number of younger Tories are attracted by the idea but there has, as yet, been no bankable commitment that a future Conservative government would introduce such a system.

Labour too has made some encouraging noises, but the picture is distinctly mixed. Shortly after becoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown made a wide-ranging speech in the House of Commons setting out his vision for constitutional reform. It included the idea of introducing the power of citizens’ initiative at a local level. More recently, the Ministry of Justice published a paper by a minister, Michael Wills, entitled A national framework for greater citizen engagement, which appeared to row back from this, preferring to focus on essentially bogus exercises like citizens’ juries and citizens’ summits. Worst of all, Communities Secretary Hazel Blears floated the ludicrous notion that people could be enticed to the polling stations by the prospect of free cakes and iPods.

As for the Liberal Democrats, one might have expected them to be passionate in their support for direct democracy but they have been strangely quiet on the issue.

Conclusion

A million people marched in London against the war in Iraq. Half a million people took to the streets in opposition to the ban on hunting. Legions are involved in community and charity work, and in single-issue pressure groups. The truth is that the public longs for a greater role in decision-making but has very little expectation that this can be achieved. Instead, we are, as a nation, becoming ever more sullen and mutinous, losing no chance to register our discontent, often in inarticulate and inappropriate ways.

Politicians know this and are concerned. In the run up to the next election, expect to hear speeches telling us about the vital importance of encouraging popular involvement in decision-making. But warm words count for nothing if they are not followed up by serious legislative proposals. The political class in Britain has had much of its former arrogance knocked out of it but is still reluctant to understand why it attracts such contempt. It may not happen tomorrow but eventually MPs and councillors will come to understand that only by sharing power with their fellow citizens through a proper system of direct democracy will they recover the goodwill and respect that was once theirs by right.