Democracy in Action
Winston Churchill (may have) said that “the biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter”. Typical patronising Commie pinko bull…
In truth, the quotation touches on a whole series of difficult questions regarding systems of democracy and how they work. Representative democracy by definition is going to involve politicians. Unfortunately, such systems tend to generate a separate political class, a self-serving insulated elite who trust the people about as much as the people trust them. Their central interest is always likely to be persuading enough voters to elect them, something not renowned for fostering a spirit of constructive and honest debate.
All of this has created a situation in which public confidence in politicians is very low indeed. This can clearly be detrimental to the rule of law (people tend to be disinclined to voluntarily obey laws created by those they hold in such low regard) and ultimately to democracy itself. It can be argued that this is an inherent trait in representative systems and that the only way to escape this is to abolish politicians altogether.
Direct democracy, however, is not without significant problems of its own. The tyranny of the majority can be a real danger, for example. And, of course, despite the fact that it may sound patronising, it really isn’t a good idea to ask people to vote on issues they don’t have the time, inclination or intellect to fully understand.
The idea that there should be a referendum on the new EU treaty is a case in point. How many people have (or will) take the time to read through the approximately 300 hundred pages (pdf) of the treaty and then take an informed view as to whether the UK should ratify it? Not many. Not me; I lack the time, inclination and intellect. I made a half hearted attempt but the thing is virtually impenetrable.
Perhaps that’s a deliberate tactic perpetrated by the political elite precisely so that the average voter cannot make an informed judgement as to its content. On the other hand, would a treaty drawn up through some process of direct public participation involving the populations of 25 European countries be any simpler or easier to understand? It hardly seems likely. And who would create such a process of direct public participation anyway?
That’s only scratching the condensation on the lacquer on the paint on the surface of this issue but with confidence in politicians at such extraordinarily low levels, it is something which needs to be seriously discussed.
Unfortunately, rather than tackling any of this, many of our elected representatives continue to play Punch and Judy to the audience instead. “You promised a referendum!” “Oh no I didn’t!” “Oh yes you did”". Constructive debate it most certainly is not. In the end, you have to wonder whether our elected representatives will be the architects of their own demise.
Justin said,
March 5, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
Nicely put. This…
…but the thing is virtually impenetrable…
…also follows for just about any piece of domestic legislation you care to mention. I’m a reasonably intelligent guy but I was utterly defeated by the latest criminal justice and terrorism bill.
Like you say, it could be a deliberate closed shop policy to keep the proles out of the process. But I have a nasty feeling that a lot of MPs might struggle with legislatory language as well.
I wonder how many read or understand these things. The other nasty thought is that under the party whip system, they don’t really need to.
Aaron Heath said,
March 6, 2008 @ 10:18 am
I’m getting increasingly pissed off at Iain Dale for being such a dick over this. I mean, of course its those spineless politicians, who seem to be confused as to why we elect them into Westminster, who are to blame, but still…
ukliberty said,
March 6, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
How many people took the time to read the 112 page Labour manifesto before voting Labour? How many MPs have read and understood the treaty?
In any case, what is the relevance? The people understood from each of the main parties that there would be a referendum on a constitutional treaty. It seems most think the promise has been broken.
As to how complicated it is, how easy or hard to understand, it really doesn’t help that the EU declines to publish a consolidated text, does it?
Aside from a leaked French language version, the ones we can find have been compiled and published by national parliaments, think-tanks and other organisations, and private individuals. There is no official version we can read for ourselves. What is the reasoning here?
This really is quite extraordinary. Our leaders are supposedly wringing their hands about disengagement, but they won’t make politics more accessible, they won’t allow us to engage, and they keep breaking their promises.
Garry said,
March 6, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Justin, you may well be right. Even MPs, the people we delegate to do this stuff for us, may not have read or understood half the stuff they vote on. It’s a worry.
I am intending to write a follow up piece linking to an old Philip Cowley article. He quoted a pamphlet which complained about MPs who “represented not their country but themselves, and always kept together in a close and undivided phalanx, impenetrable either by shame or honour, voting always the same way, and saying always the same things…”. Our sentiment exactly, I’m sure, but that was published in 1698.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/philip_cowley/2007/03/yo_henry_dont_diss_the_commons.html
That doesn’t mean today’s politicians don’t need do a lot better, of course.
Aaron, Iain really is in overdrive at the moment. He doesn’t actually appear to be saying very much though.
PS, while I fully appreciate why you might want to, please try to resist using, er, robust language to describe Iain’s antics. He’ll only make a song and dance about it despite the fact that he’s guilty of far worse himself. :o)
UKliberty, interesting.
It’s a good point. Goes back to Churchill above and how well democracy works if citizens are neglectful of the responsibilities involved in living in a democratic society.
Now, I’d really love to know the answer to that question.
I can’t honestly express an opinion as to whether the promise of a referendum has been broken because I really don’t know how similar this treaty is to that constitution. I’m more interested in asking whether this is a suitable subject for a referendum in the first place. More widely, I’d like to see a more informed debate about the advantages and disadvantages of representative and direct democracy rather than the simplistic nonsense our politicians are treating us to.
Finally, I agree that there should be a consolidated text which would at least give us a chance of understanding what’s going on. As for the reasons why there isn’t ine, I think they did try something a bit like that a couple of years ago but it didn’t go down that well (joke, sort of).
ukliberty said,
March 6, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Many a truth said in jest!
ukliberty said,
March 7, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
If I may add some further thoughts:
I think manifestos are very active party members and the Salisbury Convention. I don’t believe the public bother to read them (if they ever did) because (1) they haven’t got the time and (2) they know a manifesto pledge isn’t a commitment you can bank on.
I think people might read those pledge cards the parties make - you know, the five main pledges. But what it comes down to is what party the voter trusts most with the economy, education, health, law and order, and immigration - the five main issues - at election time.
I’m sure there are a number of MPs that don’t understand legislation - if they have bothered to read it. Indeed, lots of people have complained about poorly drafted legislation, including judges, who presumably are pretty experienced, so Justin is by no means in bad company.
We do indeed delegate the responsibility to our representatives of properly understanding and scrutinising legislation - if they are incapable of doing that, or aren’t allowed to or avoid doing so (eg the short timetable given to the Commons for the Lisbon Treaty), I think it’s reasonable to wonder what is the point of their existence.
Finally, going back to Churchill’s comment, I think there a number of MPs he could reasonably say this about, which again begs the question, what is the point of their existence?
Scottish Roundup » Blog Archive » Democracy, white working class people, and 99% of the population all under assault said,
March 9, 2008 @ 12:14 am
[…] Garry takes a look at what the debate over the Lisbon Treaty means for democracy. As does Stewart […]
Neil Craig said,
May 27, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
If the EU treaty has been deliberately writen to be incomprehensible & I agree with you & others who said it was, then this is a very strong argument for rejecting it. For the same reason you don’t sign any contract without reading it - in any contract youare signing away rights, none moreso than a constitution. At the very least you get a lawyer or somebody you trust to check it. The unfortunte fact is that among politicians & mainstream media there is nobody we trust.