UK

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Winston Churchill

Following the abrupt and unlooked-for result of the EU referendum in the UK at the start of the summer the British Labour Party has set about sustaining the sensation of stupefaction amongst the good inhabitants of that bewildered territory by doing its best to tear itself apart. The challenge by one hundred and seventy two members of the Parliamentary Labour Party to the stewardship of its previously unexpected leader, Jeremy Corbyn – based notionally on his perceived non-electability in a general election – reached its denouement with his re-election as leader with an increased majority of party members’ votes.

Might this be the end of the matter? Hell no!

The battle behind the scenes is not just about the party’s chances in the next general election. It concerns rather the wildly differing views of the nature of democracy itself held by the constituent members of the organisation. Fundamentally, those to the left of the party do not believe in parliamentary/representative democracy. The idea that those who are chosen to represent the electorate should be gifted power once every five years, on the basis of an agreed manifesto, is anathema to those who believe that ‘true’ democracy requires rather that power should rest continually in the hands of its party members.

To those who wish to be constantly engaged in politics this is perhaps understandable. British democracy – as in many other parts of the western world – is predicated upon a direct but limited connection between the electorate and those who represent them. Once elected the members of parliament are largely protected from interference by those who put them there – until subsequent ballots allow the electorate to issue a judgement as to how well – or how badly – they have performed. This actually suits the majority of voters well – preferring as they do not to have to think about the grubby business of politics more than is absolutely necessary.

To those on the further left such a state of affairs will not do at all. These people hold the view that the members of a political party should be able to exercise judgement on its elected representatives at any point by de-selecting them should they be deemed not to have toed the party line. Further, these zealots would like to be able to dictate policy through decisions taken by the membership at party conferences. It should be clear that this could well mean that the wider electorate could not only lose the ability to pass judgement themselves on their chosen representatives, but that they might also wake up to discover that the party for which they had voted no longer subscribed to the manifesto on which they made their choice. By such means the actuality of democracy would be re-calibrated away from the involvement of the forty six million plus who make up the total electorate toward the half a million or so who are members of the Labour party.

When it comes to the hard core – of course – there are those on the left who do not believe in party democracy either. They are playing a long game in which they believe that ultimate power rests with a smaller number of party activists who – in the longer term – can utilise a palette of well documented strategies to ensure that the motions adopted as a result of ‘democratic’ votes are those of their preference. Such devious manipulations are – naturally – to be kept at arms length from those in charge of the party, but to those of us who witnessed such methods in use during the 1970s and 1980s – be it by political parties, trade unions or even in student politics (as did I myself) – present denials that we are in fact experiencing a re-run of that period in the Labour Party’s history ring somewhat hollow.

Churchill quote was apt. He recognised the failings of the UK’s parliamentary system, but he was also right that pretty much anything else would be worse. Certainly recent experience should warn the nation away from any experiment which attempts to extend democracy by increasing the use of referenda. My view – which I have long espoused and which I have seen championed increasingly across the various media in recent weeks – is that the most effective way to improve democracy in Britain would be through electoral reform.

That the Labour Party is vehemently opposed to such a course speak volumes.

“One of the reasons people hate politics is that truth is rarely a politician’s objective.

Election and power are.”

Cal Thomas

I have – you may have noticed – throughout the past five weeks refrained from making any mention whatsoever of the UK General Election.

There are three reasons for this:

1. Though I may on occasion feel moved to venture an opinion on a political theme, this is not the
   raison d’être of this blog and I would prefer not thus to abuse the casual reader.
2. The standard of the political fare on offer this time round has been so dire that I can scarce summon the will to dignify it with commentary.
3. For the first time that I can recall since reaching the age of majority I have myself been struggling to work out to whom I should give my precious vote. Now – if ever – is the time that we need a ‘None of the above‘ box on the ballot paper!

However….

Today we enjoy the opportunity to exercise our democratic right. I strongly feel that we should so do.

These two vital but little discussed issues will inform my eventual decision:

1. Inequality: The gulf between the richest and the poorest has been growing steadily since the late 1970s. There is no sign that this tide is about to turn. The party that wants my vote must address this issue.
2. Europe: The Tories have given in cravenly to demands from the far right for a referendum on continued membership of the EC. The right believes fervently that such a referendum would inevitably lead to the UK exiting the community, and they are quite probably correct in so doing. In this case I fear that I cannot accept that the ‘democratic will of the people’ should hold sway. I would do so could I believe that the majority of the populace had reached such a judgement after careful consideration and with reasoned thought, rather than merely as the result of simple knee-jerk xenophobia. We would do well – in this era of the anniversaries of the cataclysms that engulfed Europe across the twentieth century – to remember the origins of and the rationale behind the European project… before it is too late!

I entreat you – should you have a vote in this election – to think deeply and to use your vote well.