What do we want from democracy?

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

If we cast our mind back to 2014, when the Conservatives were worried about how the threat of UKIP might split their vote in the 2015 election, we find that there were some Conservatives advocating for mandatory primaries (whether open or closed) to select party candidates for each seat. This piece in ConservativeHome.com, for example, calls the rise of UKIP a 'crisis'. It echoes Seeker_UK's arguments in favour of keeping FPTP (see its last two paragraphs) but argues that there is a need to inject more democracy at the candidate selection stage.


I'm sure that it would improve the quality of the candidates we get to vote for, and the MP's accountability to their constituents. Are there any downsides?

I like the idea. It means a sitting MP who is a poor constituency MP could have his chain yanked when it was time for reelection, as could an MP whose conduct had fallen below acceptable standards, as far as his constituents were concerned. If the Parliamentary Standards people are toothless, or compliant, MPs would still face the wrath of their constituents. No obvious downsides beyond the likely tendency for factions to try to game the system, install favoured candidates, etc, but that happens now and would seem less likely under a primary system.

 

[Mullardman]

Lots of intelligent discussion in this thread, and a few 'clunkers' too.

I really only have two points to add:

1.) 40 years ago,as I starved myself and my family through a Degree in 'Social Sciences', (It was the quickest way I could see to get off the 'last in-first out' revolving door of redundancy..) I chose as many politics courses as possible. This partly to avoid the 'Stats' and 'Research Methods' which infested Sociology and Psychology, but also because I just found politics more interesting, with the possible exception of some of the deeper and more navel gazing aspects of Marxist Theory. Not that I'm anti Marx per se, you understand..just some of the more convoluted 'proofs' employed by the 'Marxophiles'. But I digress...

Much of the stuff studied was grouped under the general heading of 'British Administration', and effectively was an examinaton of issues within the accepted reality of British Govt. and politics. Stuff like issues around collective responsibility, Govt. by commitee, etc etc. Looking back.. things which were resignation matters back then hardly raise a ripple these days, as Govt's, particulary Tory Govt.s become more brazen in their contempt for the electorate.

More interesting to me were the 'classic' works on Govt, such as 'The Republic' (Plato) 'The Prince' (Machiavelli), 'The Social Contract' (Rousseau) etc..etc.. Also stuff by the likes of Hobbes, Locke, Bentham et.al.

Some worked hard to effectively 'justify and legitimise' the status quo, whilst others theorised about, or even advocated radical solutions.

The biggest single issue, in every proposal, was that of the consent of the governed, to be governed, within any particular system.

Even Rousseau, whose proposed 'Social Contract' seemed to me to be the most pragmatic and least coercive solution, struggled with what to do about dissenters.. and simply stated that they should be 'forced to be free'.. a notion later picked upon somewhat disingenuously by those who wanted to label Rousseau either Proto Fascist or Proto Communist.

Of course it was a long time ago, but I don't recall any of the above even touching on the notion of universal suffrage.

2. ) As already touched upon the reason for much of what's wrong in UK politics at the moment is rooted in two main issues. The first of course is the seemingly intractable problem of misinformation, mostly perpetrated by a Foreign owned press, but not helped by a supine BBC, which whilst it mostly reports events truthfully, often fails to ask the necessary questions. The second, related issue is the woeful political illiteracy of huge swathes of our electorate, so that they really are not equipped to properly assess and apply discernment to information.
It seems unlikely that anything will change re: the press anytime soon, but I see no reason why the education system could not be improved to help people to navigate the press, social media etc., more intelligently and with more scepticism.

 

[Seanm]

If we cast our mind back to 2014, when the Conservatives were worried about how the threat of UKIP might split their vote in the 2015 election, we find that there were some Conservatives advocating for mandatory primaries (whether open or closed) to select party candidates for each seat. This piece in ConservativeHome.com, for example, calls the rise of UKIP a 'crisis'. It echoes Seeker_UK's arguments in favour of keeping FPTP (see its last two paragraphs) but argues that there is a need to inject more democracy at the candidate selection stage.


I'm sure that it would improve the quality of the candidates we get to vote for, and the MP's accountability to their constituents. Are there any downsides?

The standard objection, likely pioneered by the Labour right but popular with many, is that anyone interested enough in politics to participate in such a process is by definition unrepresentative of the British people as a whole.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The standard objection, likely pioneered by the Labour right but popular with many, is that anyone interested enough in politics to participate in such a process is by definition unrepresentative of the British people as a whole.

That's an odd argument, given that all parties choose their own candidates via some internal process.

 

[Seanm]

That's an odd argument, given that all parties choose their own candidates via some internal process.

The implication is that in actuality these processes are very well “managed”.

 

[laughingboy]

The standard objection, likely pioneered by the Labour right but popular with many, is that anyone interested enough in politics to participate in such a process is by definition unrepresentative of the British people as a whole.

It is a very odd argument to make, as it could equally be levelled at candidates as it could electors: anyone interested enough in politics/power to put themselves forward as an MP is by definition unrepresentative of the British people as a whole. It boils down to being an argument against representative democracy itself.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The implication is that in actuality these processes are very well “managed”.

Ah, I take the point. It goes to my acknowledgement that the likely downside is a tendency for factions to game the system. But given that probably happens already, it doesn't feel like a criticism of primary style selection, per se.

 

[Seanm]

It is a very odd argument to make, as it could equally be levelled at candidates as it could electors: anyone interested enough in politics/power to put themselves forward as an MP is by definition unrepresentative of the British people as a whole. It boils down to being an argument against representative democracy itself.

Yes that is basically what it is.

There’s no contradiction in the minds of those who make the argument because they’re drawing an unspoken but pretty absolute distinction between the political class and the public. The political class are made up of professionals doing a job, or performing a duty: they’re not, in this story, enthusiasts or ideologues.

 

[Seanm]

Ah, I take the point. It goes to my acknowledgement that the likely downside is a tendency for factions to game the system. But given that probably happens already, it doesn't feel like a criticism of primary style selection, per se.

Yes, that’s how I see it. Candidate selection-by-faction or by patron is currently how it works, with a bit of theatrical rubber-stamping by party members. Very little transparency. Everyone who counts knows this and approves: they’ll even admit to approving if pressed, using the above argument.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Consensus is what parties are built on. The difference is that compromises and decisions are made before the elections so that the Electorate know what they are voting for.

Just to summarise my understanding of your position, so as not to be thought to be misrepresenting it: you prefer FPTP because the government you vote for, based on their manifesto, is what you get (if they win); whereas with PR, the horse-trading after the election means it's not clear what bits of which manifesto will actually see the light of day. Apologies if that's an oversimplification.

My problem with that is that broken manifesto promises are pretty much a given anyway, so you don't really know what you're voting for. And more than that, the parties have, in their more underhand moments, taken to burying some of their more dubious objectives deep in the small print of the manifesto where they'll probably escape scrutiny. Assuming the electorate troubles itself enough to read the manifestos in the first place.

Manifesto promises get thrown under the bus because 'events, dear boy' or because Treasury won't fund them, or any number of plausible reasons. So all you can really rely on is a subjective assessment of the ideological stance of the parties as a guide. So you don't really, deep down, know with any degree of certainty, what specifics you are voting for, and post-electoral horse trading, aka Parliamentary debate and process, is as likely to control what you actually get as it would be under PR.

 

[ks.234]

Just to summarise my understanding of your position, so as not to be thought to be misrepresenting it: you prefer FPTP because the government you vote for, based on their manifesto, is what you get (if they win); whereas with PR, the horse-trading after the election means it's not clear what bits of which manifesto will actually see the light of day. Apologies if that's an oversimplification.

My problem with that is that broken manifesto promises are pretty much a given anyway, so you don't really know what you're voting for. And more than that, the parties have, in their more underhand moments, taken to burying some of their more dubious objectives deep in the small print of the manifesto where they'll probably escape scrutiny. Assuming the electorate troubles itself enough to read the manifestos in the first place.

Manifesto promises get thrown under the bus because 'events, dear boy' or because Treasury won't fund them, or any number of plausible reasons. So all you can really rely on is a subjective assessment of the ideological stance of the parties as a guide. So you don't really, deep down, know with any degree of certainty, what specifics you are voting for, and post-electoral horse trading, aka Parliamentary debate and process, is as likely to control what you actually get as it would be under PR.

People don’t vote for manifesto’s anyway, people vote for personalities. Personalities like Trump and Johnson

 

[laughingboy]

Yes, that’s how I see it. Candidate selection-by-faction or by patron is currently how it works, with a bit of theatrical rubber-stamping by party members. Very little transparency. Everyone who counts knows this and approves: they’ll even admit to approving if pressed, using the above argument.

Even in the case of primaries, the details of the process matter. There's a Wikipedia page on Conservative Party parliamentary primaries. What seems to happen is that wealthy, well-connected candidates such as Victoria Atkins enter one primary after another until they win. Also, the candidates get vetted beforehand by a selection committee. So, the Tory primary process is highly 'managed', too.

 

[sean99]

It is a very odd argument to make, as it could equally be levelled at candidates as it could electors: anyone interested enough in politics/power to put themselves forward as an MP is by definition unrepresentative of the British people as a whole. It boils down to being an argument against representative democracy itself.

Perhaps this could be addressed by some form of "government by lottery", like the jury system. There would be 3 chambers of government - elected constituency representatives, representatives allotted on the basis of ranked choice PR, and a third group chosen at random, like jury duty, but perhaps serving one day per week for a period of 6 months or so, suitably compensated (plus the employer). This might lead to less of a divide between the political class and the rest of the country.
It could be sold to the public as an extension of the concepts of jury duty and national service.

 

[Tony L]

The standard objection, likely pioneered by the Labour right but popular with many, is that anyone interested enough in politics to participate in such a process is by definition unrepresentative of the British people as a whole.

There is also a huge difference between democratic processes, or the decided lack thereof within the various parties and actual democracy/voter representation. This is something Labour in particular get very wrong to my eyes. Every now and again they tie themselves in endless knots deciding which internal factions should be listened to/silenced, whilst always ignoring the elephant in the room which is systemic electoral reform.

PS The Tories obviously get it more wrong from a democratic perspective, but they achieve exactly what they aim: to keep all power and control in the hands of a wealthy privileged elite.

 

[Joe Hutch]

I remember my old History teacher banging on about ‘the tyranny of democracy’ in a doomed attempt to stimulate debate amongst a group of apathetic sixth-formers. All he got was yawns and sneers.

But the question is really not so much ‘what do we want from democracy’ as ‘what should we expect from government’.

In no particular order, I’d suggest these are, as a bare minimum:

Security from external threats
Protection against crime
Access to clean drinking water and sufficient affordable food
Stable financial systems
Good education and healthcare
A robust legal system, with justice not delayed or denied

In theory of course all parties and all prospective MPs will sign up to these goals, but in reality some will pretend that they can be delivered on the cheap, or will say, in effect, 'yes, all these are good things, but we just can't afford them'.

 

[sean99]

I remember my old History teacher banging on about ‘the tyranny of democracy’ in a doomed attempt to stimulate debate amongst a group of apathetic sixth-formers. All he got was yawns and sneers.

But the question is really not so much ‘what do we want from democracy’ as ‘what should we expect from government’.

In no particular order, I’d suggest these are, as a bare minimum:

Security from external threats
Protection against crime
Access to clean drinking water and sufficient affordable food
Stable financial systems
Good education and healthcare
A robust legal system, with justice not delayed or denied

In theory of course all parties and all prospective MPs will sign up to these goals, but in reality some will pretend that they can be delivered on the cheap, or will say, in effect, 'yes, all these are good things, but we just can't afford them'.

I think this is a worthwhile parallel to "how to construct government". You missed housing - the bedrock of good health is a reliable roof over your head.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I remember my old History teacher banging on about ‘the tyranny of democracy’ in a doomed attempt to stimulate debate amongst a group of apathetic sixth-formers. All he got was yawns and sneers.

But the question is really not so much ‘what do we want from democracy’ as ‘what should we expect from government’.

In no particular order, I’d suggest these are, as a bare minimum:

Security from external threats
Protection against crime
Access to clean drinking water and sufficient affordable food
Stable financial systems
Good education and healthcare
A robust legal system, with justice not delayed or denied

In theory of course all parties and all prospective MPs will sign up to these goals, but in reality some will pretend that they can be delivered on the cheap, or will say, in effect, 'yes, all these are good things, but we just can't afford them'.

Yes, I think this goes back to something I was trying to express in post #5 'what are countries for?'

We can see in the Russia/Ukraine thing that countries, and associated nationalism, aren't unequivocally good things, so do we actually 'need' countries? My answer is 'yes, we do, because we require them to provide certain basics for citizens' and it then comes down to what those basics should be. I think it also ties into ks' point about signing up to the UDHR.

For me, a country (and, by extension, the government of that country) is required, at the least, to provide for:

• Security of its citizens, physical and social: so that means defence, maintenance of internal law and order (which includes the justice system), and a social safety net (benefits, pensions, emergency and hardship provisions).
• Basic and critical national infrastructure: roads and transportation; communications; power and energy; water and waste management; financial infrastructure (central bank or equivalent to support a viable currency; payments systems; banking regulation).
• Education and healthcare, including social care.
• Enabling of the private sector, and regulation of the conduct of public and private sector, including environmental controls.

There are lots of things you need to bolt on to this list to make them work, such as a civil service, diplomatic service, and so-on, but as a list of the basic functionality of a viable state that's what I think is the minimum citizens should expect. Then we get onto what good government should look like, when providing for these basic functions. And how we avoid the dysfunctional problems we see around us occurring or recurring.

 

[sean99]

And how we avoid the dysfunctional problems we see around us occurring or recurring.

I know I'm a broken record on this, but my recent reading on how to mitigate the damage of psychopaths led to a stupiphany (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stupiphany).

The key to limiting the damage caused by malign actors is to minimize the power of the individual, especially when operating in bodies (governments, corporate boards) where they have potentially great power and influence.

I'd get rid of presidents and prime-ministers (and CEOs) and just have group decisions.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Yes, more citizen involvement, citizens juries, and so-on, would definitely be a big feature of Democracy v2.0 for me.

 

[Bob McC]

So a return to cat o’9 tails and hanging then if vox pops is accurate.