What do we want from democracy?

[George J]

When I was a child I knew a lovely lady just a little older than my late mother, whom my father [a red-neck Tory if ever there was one] used to tease at election time. She worked for my mother in the house when I was a small child and was the chief of the potato pickers in the season. A character in reality. After my mother left home in Easter 1970, Mrs. B- kept house for my father for another ten years ...

He used to say, "Well Mrs. B-, how are you going to vote?" and she come right back with the same answer every time. "Well Mr. Johnson, I'll vote when we have laws, the same for rich and poor!"

Her husband was just as big a character, and his take was more sceptical.

"Do you think they would let us vote if it really made any difference?"

This is from four and five decades ago, which rather suggest that our current malaise is not something especially new, or even more noticeable now than then.

_______________

I remember the 2011 Referendum on "Alternative Voting," though I remember it as the PR Referendum. I voted for change, and found myself in the slightly less than one third minority. I was talking to Mr and Mrs B- just before the plebiscite, and they also agreed the system needed change, but said that we would certainly loose the vote. Reason being people don't like radical change ...

As it goes - and I have said it before - after a while every nation really does get the government it deserves as a whole. Of course, when a nation is being coerced, like Poland under Russia from 1945 to the collapse of Russian communism, this is not true, but by now Poland probably does deserve its ultra-nationalist, far right government, as they keep voting for it. This does displease quite a few Poles I know, but they are in a Polish minority as I am in a British minority politically.

I think that Mr and Mrs B- [both now sadly no longer alive], probably had it right. Nothing will ever change.

Sorry to be so negative, but the UK is probably the least able country in Europe to change itself for the better. We are regressing fast, and the direction of travel has been in place ever since the end of Atlee's premiership. Not much anyone can do about it given the general apathy of the British as a whole.

Best wishes from George

 

[eternumviti]

What do we want from democracy?

More beer and bigger women.

 

[Cav]

How about:

Do away with constituencies;

Limit the number of MPs to say 500 max;

In an election you vote for a Party (and its manifesto) not individuals;

The share of the vote that each Party gets determines how many seats they can have;

Government can be formed either by an absolute majority or by coalitions of minor Parties;

An "Upper House" replacing the Lords is similarly elected.

Clearly needs work but I hope you get the drift.

Difficulty is that it would never be implementable short of a revolution.

 

[Seanm]

I haven't followed as closely as you, but I thought the Greens, LibDems and SNP all supported a second Brexit referendum, so I don't really understand why you suggest they chose "Brexit over progressive change".

FPTP: in reality the choice wasn't leave or remain or 2nd referendum, it was a very, very hard Brexit under Johnson or, at worst, soft Brexit and probably a 2nd ref under Corbyn. There were many opportunities to do some kind of deal with Labour but they would not dirty their hands.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Do away with constituencies;

How do constituents get an elected representative they can get in contact with for help?

 

[Tony L]

How about:

Do away with constituencies;

Limit the number of MPs to say 500 max;

In an election you vote for a Party (and its manifesto) not individuals;

The share of the vote that each Party gets determines how many seats they can have;

Government can be formed either by an absolute majority or by coalitions of minor Parties;

An "Upper House" replacing the Lords is similarly elected.

That’s pretty much my view of PR, though I don’t see a reason to cut down the number of MPs. The more representation and the wider the debate the better IMO. The interesting thing would be defining what exactly was a legitimate ‘party’, e.g. does it actually need to be more than an individual standing on a specific niche issue?

 

[tuga]

The Ukraine thread has taken an interesting but off-topic direction lately, so I thought I'd start this one and we might let the Ukraine thread resume course.

I wanted to start by asking a fundamental question: What is democracy for; and following on from that, what do we want from it?

ISTM, and others on here, that 'democracy' as currently experienced in the UK and the US, is a very flawed thing and likely fails to provide some of the fundamentals that a decent democracy should provide, namely: providing a means for the people to have some control and influence over decisions which affect their lives, and the way the country is run, in a way which reflects the (often disparate) interests of the greatest number. (And by 'reflects...interests of the greatest number' I don't mean majority rule, but rather a system that accommodates the interests of as many people as possible, from all parts of the political spectrum.

At the moment, the FPTP system in the UK, and the electoral college system in the US, are most effective at providing the appearance of general suffrage, while actually perpetuating a system where embedded interests and factions continue to prosper largely unmolested by the expressed wishes of the people. In short, the majority of voters either do not vote for the party in power, or the outcome may still fail to produce a result which reflects that majority vote. Both these systems have come perilously close to catastrophic failure, and may yet do so in the forseeable future.

So if we need a new system, what do we need it to do, and what should it look like?

Off the top of my head:

1. End of FPTP and House of Lords.

2. A modern written Constitution.

3. An independent Constitutional Court which can hold the PM/Government accountable, scrutinise the Budget, and dissolve Parliament if the PM/Government actions and conduct are deemed unlawful.

4. A hemicycle Parliament room.

5. Strict regulation and enforcement of concentration of media ownership.

6. Strict regulation and enforcement of political party funding.

7. A way to rebalance the old / young voters scale in an ageing society.

 

[Cav]

How do constituents get an elected representative they can get in contact with for help?

Constituents will not exist given the absence of constituencies.

They contact the Party helpline and an MP will respond.

 

[Tony L]

How do constituents get an elected representative they can get in contact with for help?

The current system is hopelessly flawed as the local MP is likely from a party you’d not dream of voting for and may even be someone you actively dislike. I can’t imagine ever going to a Tory surgery, and I’d really struggle with Labour to be honest, though they do certainly have some MPs I respect and would be prepared to deal with. Imagine if your MP is some prick like Gove or Rees Mogg? How are you expected to deal with that? It would be like going to the local gangsters for help.

 

[Cav]

That’s pretty much my view of PR, though I don’t see a reason to cut down the number of MPs. The more representation and the wider the debate the better IMO. The interesting thing would be defining what exactly was a legitimate ‘party’, e.g. does it actually need to be more than an individual standing on a specific niche issue?

The number of Representatives is not crucial.

If someone wants to stand on a niche issue and people vote, why not?

 

[Mike & Van]

I think PR does give extremes an airing - it is designed to reflect a broad spectrum of interests after all, but it also can be cathartic - the pressure doesn't build if the views can be heard and taken into account. They will (hopefully) always remain marginal extremes, and their presence should reflect that.

I'd argue that Farage and UKIP didn't suffer from any lack of exposure. Can we learn anything from that, like that you don't have to be 'in power' to exercise power? Can we somehow latch on to that in a way that gets more people a say in things that affect them?

You mean like holding a referendum for instance?

 

[Seeker_UK]

Imagine if your MP is some prick like Gove or Rees Mogg?

As I'm not in either's constituency, I won't jump to conclusions about how they act as constituency MPs, so difficult to say. If they are good, they would help you, even if you didn't vote for them and you think they are "prick"s.

 

[Tony L]

If they are good, they would help you…

That’s one hell of a big ‘if’ you have going on there. I’d honestly not trust many of them to tell me the right time I’m afraid. It is abundantly clear where their priorities lie, and I can’t see myself needing help transferring £millions to offshore tax havens, or advice on how to do dodgy PPE deals via the medium of burner phones and closed Whatsapp groups!

 

[Seeker_UK]

That’s one hell of a big ‘if’ you have going on there. I’d honestly not trust many of them to tell me the right time I’m afraid. It is abundantly clear where their priorities lie, and I can’t see myself needing help transferring £millions to offshore tax havens, or advice on how to do dodgy PPE deals via the medium of burner phones and closed Whatsapp groups!

The fact is you don't actually know how they treat people at the constituency level, certainly no more than I do. That's why I stated "if".

 

[Joe Hutch]

What do people want from democracy? Lots of different things.

Let's take a sample of two; my brother and brother-in-law. Brother is a left-of-centre socialist, expelled from his local Labour party in the Kinnock Reign of Terror. He wants: nationalisation of almost everything, abolition of the Monarchy, an end to private education and public schools. Brother-in-law is a Thatcherite Tory. He wants: more privatisation, hounding of benefit fraudsters, continuation of selective education, huge cuts to the public payroll.

Both think that the democratic process should deliver the things that they want, because, in their opinion, the things they want are the 'right' things, and they don't respect the legitimacy of any government that doesn't deliver them.

 

[Seeker_UK]

UK is ranked 18th out of 167 in the Democracy Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index).

In fact, there's only 20 countries deemded to be "Full Democracies", so we must be doing something right. Well, better than France, Spain, USA who are considered "Flawed Democracies" (lacking some transparency) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy).

Or from this one for 2022 https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries The UK is 17th.

 

[Tony L]

Both think that the democratic process should deliver the things that they want, because, in their opinion, the things they want are the 'right' things, and they don't respect the legitimacy of any government that doesn't deliver them.

That is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of democracy, representation and accountability. I’m not arguing for any ideology at all, just fair representation and accountability. The results will be whatever people want, the only difference is those of us who are disenfranchised will actually get to play a democratic part in whatever picture emerges. As it is pretty much every vote I have ever cast in my life has been thrown away at the local level without my gaining representation. As an example I’d currently have to move to Brighton to cast a Green vote and actually get a Green representative. I’d rather like to live in Brighton as it is a cool place, but this shouldn’t be how “democracy” works!

 

[Tony L]

UK is ranked 18th out of 167 in the Democracy Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index).

…by The Economist.

 

[Seeker_UK]

…by The Economist.

Please feel free to explain where the methodology is flawed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Methodology

 

[Hook]

Nothing very original, but here’s what I think.

1) Representative democracy is the best form of government we’ve come up with so far. History shows that democracy is better than monarchy, autocracy and/or oligarchy at protecting the interests of citizens, promoting equality, preventing abuse of power, and creating stability.

2) Representative democracy is more tolerable of dissent than other forms of government. Most support the right to voice criticism and peacefully protest.

3) Representative democracy has many problems. Not everyone exercises their right to vote, and those that do aren’t necessarily well informed. Processes are complicated, and decisions can take a long time. Democracies are also clearly not immune to corruption.

What do I want? Improvement of course! This article provides a good framework, even though it was written mostly about foreign policy.

https://freedomhouse.org/policy-recommendations/strengthening-democracy-abroad

Too many young voters do not see democracy changing fast enough to have a positive impact on their lives. Gerrymandering and other forms of “rigging the game” have resulted in voter apathy and low turnout, especially among those that need positive change the most. If this does not change, then democracy will fade and all we’ll have left is autocracy.