The Crisis in our
Democracy
BACKGROUND
and CONTEXT
To many the results of the EU Referendum were unexpected and incomprehensible. In order to understand it we need to analyse it on two levels, examining two sets of facts. One set is to do with the specific circumstances that immediately preceded it. The other is to go deeper into its wider context and the background of the political changes that brought the alien concept of Referenda into our Representative Accountable Parliamentary Democracy. Both, Harold Wilson and David Cameron, used the beguiling institution of a referendum as a means to unite their Parties, unmindful of the damage that they would cause in undermining our very own Parliamentary Democracy.
To many the results of the EU Referendum were unexpected and incomprehensible. In order to understand it we need to analyse it on two levels, examining two sets of facts. One set is to do with the specific circumstances that immediately preceded it. The other is to go deeper into its wider context and the background of the political changes that brought the alien concept of Referenda into our Representative Accountable Parliamentary Democracy. Both, Harold Wilson and David Cameron, used the beguiling institution of a referendum as a means to unite their Parties, unmindful of the damage that they would cause in undermining our very own Parliamentary Democracy.
Far from
uniting their Parties both Governments and Oppositions managed to divide the
country. The purpose of this essay is to show that the phenomenon of Referenda
is a symptom of the crisis in our democracy. Whether we are in or out of the EU
is no more than a matter of economic policy that needs to be reviewed and to
change with circumstances. The impact of introducing Referenda has more enduring
constitutional consequences on how we govern ourselves.
1. For thousands of
years communities of humans sought social cohesion to enable them to live in
peace together. Social cohesion is built on shared language, culture and moral
values. This was at the root and the underlying conclusion of Aristotle’s
research into some 150 Poleis (City-States) which recommended that the
population of a City
State,
Polis, ideally should be around 100,000 inhabitants to enable it to secure such
lasting cohesion in order to govern itself consensually and peacefully. His
pupil Alexander the Great shattered the idea and the cohesion it sought by
creating an empire too vast and diverse to gel together. In the West today only Iceland and the Swiss Canton can be compared to Aristotle’s Mediterranean
Polis. All other countries have lost or are losing their internal cohesion, some
fast, like the UK,
others slower like the Scandinavian countries.
2. Direct Democracy
as the rule of the people by the people was possible and indeed was exercised in
some Poleis, for example in ancient Athens, where the adult male population
assembled at the city centre, the Agra, and decided on vital issues of state.
But the consequences of wars and the influx of immigrations both created
centrifugal forces that collided with the centripetal forces that held the
society together. In Athens these centrifugal
forces caused the erosion of direct democracy to the extent that Plato in his
Republic looked to the likes of oligarchic and dictatorial Sparta to
constitute his ideal society governed by the philosopher ruler. Dogma and
Ideology replaced evolutionary practicality. Ideology by definition is based on
the past. Thankfully Plato’s dream remained a dream, indeed a nightmare, from
the past.
3. Skipping over 2000
years of
political thinking the pragmatic English,
(after 1707 the British) owing to historical circumstances re-created the
concept of democracy and anchored it into the institution of a Representative
Parliament. Avoiding dogmas and ideologies the British Genius let this new
concept and institution evolve and adapt to the new circumstances that arose
from time to time. The people and their rulers
acted in tune if not always in harmony. This practical approach permeated all
aspects of our lives and has been reflected even in our Judiciary. Our Judges
over the years tempered the dictates of the cold rigid
Law and
balanced it in their verdicts with the
underlying concept of equity and fairness. In that process judges in one way
legislated from the Bench by creating Precedents that can guide but not dictate
future verdicts. This legal procedure is often followed even today. In
England the Montesquieu principle of the separation of the powers of the
three Arms of the State (Legislative, Executive and Judiciary) emphasised in
practice the coordination and not separation of these powers.
4. By the beginning
of the 20th century our evolved system of a Parliamentary Representative
Accountable Constituency System that guided us allowed our democracy to continue
to flourish and evolve. The two Houses of Parliament balanced each other as the
House of Commons embedded within its ranks the Executive i.e. the Government and
the Lords embedded the Judiciary, the Courts. Thus the three arms of the state,
the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary moved in the same direction
representing the British people while balancing each other through peaceful
co-existence with their bases - The MPs represented the urban citizens and the
rising bourgeoisie while the hereditary Lords represented the Shires. Thus it
was taken for granted that the Constituency MP represented not his/her Party but
all his/her Constituents while the Lords exercising responsibility spoke for the
populations of their rural Estates and their surrounding countryside. Therefore
Members of both Houses of Parliament were Representatives i.e representing the
whole mix of the wider interests of their communities not the narrow interests
of their Parties or their Classes. That produced a democratic edifice, the envy
of the world.
5. However, at the
beginning of the 20th Century all that balanced edifice began to crack and
crumble and mindlessly our political establishments themselves began dismantling
it brick by brick. This process was spurred by the deficiency in representation
rooted in our Majoritarian FPTP Electoral System when winners take all, which is
rigid and lacking the flexibility and elasticity to change with the times.
Instead of reforming the House of Lords changing it to an elected chamber, the
Establishment of the Commons stripped it of its substantive authority eventually
ending it being appointed by the very Establishment that it was meant to guide,
balance and supervise. In the Commons, the MPs instead of being representatives
were in effect converted into Party Delegates.
6. It started with
the 1911 Parliament Act (with its follow up of 1949) when the power and
responsibilities of the House of Lords were curtailed. Both coincided with the
rise and rise of the trade unions and the Labour Party. What concerns us here is
the effect on our constitutional arrangement not the merits or the reasons which
brought it about. Politics became polarised and adversarial. The Press and the
Media simplistically followed suit and projected each policy or argument into
black and white, yes or no, or in new parlour “Binary”
7. Class war, not as
in Karl Marx’s lexicon but class as short for social grouping with shared
interests, is at the root of evolution. Socio-economic classes are stacked on
top of each other with the better-off at the top and the least fortunate at the
bottom. For the purposes of research and statistics the ONS graded them into A,
B, C1, C2, D and E. However what interests us here
is not an objective grading but the subjective feeling of individuals as to
which class they belong to and judge themselves deserving to belong to: the Upper, Middle or Lower Classes. As social
conditions evolve the individual members of each class try to better their
position by climbing up and join the class above. The mechanism that blocks this
natural social evolution brings about revolution or convulsion, in the past it
was violent, today it is through the ballot box. If blocked it can lead or
resort to violence. This has been enacted before our eyes today but we refuse to
see it. As a result
the
strife for change is moving from Westminster to Trafalgar Square. The rise of Corbyn and his popular support as the leader of the Labour Party reflect the attempt of the
rising lower middle class to take what they believe to be their natural right to
participate in leading the country and shaping our society. This convulsion in
our political system could have been absorbed and channelled through gradual
changes as befit the traditional practicality that we are so famous for. However
what obstructed this gradual smooth change that we needed was a fossilised Majoritarian electoral system which freezes the
status quo and prevent natural and gradual changes.
8. Paradoxically the
EU Referendum results, instead of leaving the Conservatives in disarray,
resulted in Labour losing its opportunity to claim the victory. If the Labour
leadership used its members and supporters to push for the Remain camp more
vigorously and visibly, and with the Tory Party divided down the middle, the
Labour Party could have claimed and indeed would have been credited with the
result. Instead of its declared objective of Remain, the Labour leadership were
busy fighting a class war with the Tories instead of leading the Remain factions
of all parties. The EU Referendum results are deepening the rifts within the
Labour Party and causing a crisis in our democracy that the results of the 2015
Elections had left exposed, weak, precarious and vulnerable.
9. It is interesting
to contrast today’s Labour Party leadership contest with that of 1980 following
the resignation of James Callaghan. Callaghan who was Prime Minister from 1976
to 1979 and had stayed on as leader of the Labour Party for eighteen months in
order to oversee an orderly transition to his favoured successor, Denis Healey,
over his own deputy Michael Foot. (Contrast the behaviour of Callaghan with that
of Miliband and compare the instant departure of the latter with the orderly
withdrawal of Michael Howard after his defeat.) However, during that period the
party had become bogged down in internal arguments about its procedures and
future direction. (Plus ca change etc !) Initially, the candidates were thought
likely to be Denis Healey, Peter
Shore and
John Silkin, but Michael Foot was persuaded to stand by left-wingers who
believed that only he could defeat Healey (not defeat the Tories!) This was the
last leadership election to be conducted amongst Members of Parliament only; an
Electoral College was subsequently introduced for future contests. That
procedure paved the way for Corbyn now to ignore the elected Labour MPs and to
appeal over their heads to the wider membership in order to stay in power and
lead the new wave that engulfs the Labour Party pushing politics to spill over
from Westminster Hall into Trafalgar
Square with all the
consequences that will ensue.
10. We must not take
the Corbyn phenomenon lightly. The trend and the sentiments of many alienated
young people are with him. When assessing his support we must remember that the
overall percentages of turnouts in recent General Elections left one third who chose not to vote. How many of this third might
support Corbyn and make a difference? The shift from moving the direct
responsibility from Labour MPs to a college of voters for the leadership of
Labour has in effect moved the centre of gravity from Parliament to the outside
paid membership.
Clearly the British genius of compromise that
managed to keep all dissents within the tent of Parliament has deserted it.
11. The elected Labour
MPs in the Commons have misjudged the mood of their young supporters in the
country. Evidently in their judgment and
indeed that of many political commentators Corbyn did not measure up to his new role. However With Labour now torn
between Left and Right wings it needs an Attlee now to mediate between “Erbert
and Erni !!” Hilary Benn could have fulfilled that role but he hastily messed it and missed it. Unless an Attlee emerges quickly the prospect of preserving unity
in their Party will be difficult to achieve. Our concern here should be the
enormous impact this is going to have on our Representative Parliamentary Democracy. We
must not let any dissent group to take over and replace the exclusive role of
the electorate in choosing the leaderships of political parties in parliament.
12. To avoid such a
situation, way back on 4 Nov 1980 I published a letter in The Times detailing a
new transparent and democratic method to elect Party Leaders. I quote it
hereunder in full for its relevance today. If my method were used for electing
the Labour Leader then, and now, it could have avoided the turmoil that is
convulsing the Labour Party on this very issue.
The Times,
4th November 1980
Electing
Labour’s leader
From: Mr. A.
Nathan
Sir, The
election of the leader of the Labour Party is of concern not only to the party
itself but to all of us who value democracy in this country. May I suggest
through your columns the following method of election hoping to test its merits
by the reasons of your readers:
1. The leader is to
be elected by Labour candidates of the last general election, ie by present
Labour MPs together with all Labour candidates who failed to be
elected.
2. The present
procedure is to be maintained except for substituting the secret ballot by an
open ballot.
3. Each elector casts
the number of votes he or she officially obtained in the last general election
as his or her votes for the leader.
In this
method the leader is elected by all citizens who voted for Labour candidates,
and therefore for the Labour Party, in the general election casting their votes
by proxy.
That this
method is both democratic and fair is self-evident and therefore any elaboration
is superfluous.
Yours
faithfully,
A.
NATHAN
9 Highbury
Road, SW19.
October
31.
Events
leading to the EU Referendum
13. Blair started the
process of shaking and undermining the UK Union. Exploiting the Pathological
hatred of the Lairds, the absentee land owners identified with the
Conservatives, Blair, anxious to perpetuate the dominance of Labour in Scotland
as a cushion for its position in Westminster, revived the nationalist
institution of the Scottish Parliament. Once he started it, and erected a monument of a building to house
it, the genie slipped out of the bottle. Following the untimely death of Donald
Dewar, the moderate safe hands, the Scottish ultra nationalists started their
campaign to replace Labour as the dominant Party as a first step. The clamour
for Independence was the clarion
call and devolution became the vehicle to renege on the 1707 Contract of the
Union. No one seemed to bother with analysing the results of the
defective Electoral Mixed System on the three Scottish elections results that
followed which pointed the way to the ascendency of the SNP.
14. Without any regard
to the bigger partner, the combined English Welsh and Northern Irish of the
Union, nor to all the Scots living south of the border in the
UK, David Cameron
agreed to hold a referendum restricting it to the those living in
Scotland alone. He was wrongly relying on Labour in
Scotland to deliver. But that was at the time when Ed Miliband was losing
credibility and grip on his Party in Scotland casting doubt on his leadership in the country. David Cameron
gambled on the future of the Union. His late realization
of the possibility of losing the referendum resulted in Cameron showering the
SNP with promises which later on he lived to regret. The results of 55/45
sounded good on the face of it when in fact they reflected the strength of the
SNP who adroitly followed them by incrementally inching forward towards the
ultimate objective of an Independent Scotland while meantime displacing Labour
as the dominant Party.
15. In contrast when
Harold Wilson at the time opted for a referendum on the restricted objective of
joining the Common Market the country was not divided and there was a genuine
desire by all the Parties to ascertain the wishes of the people. We all thought
that was a “one off” exercise in democracy not making it a new habit.
It is then that Harold Wilson announced his “Yes” recommendation
supported by leading Cabinet colleagues which he announced and defended. Still even that in fact
undermined the authority of Parliament. Clement Freud decided to ask his
constituency how did they want him to vote following the debate in Parliament
and he was told by some constituents : “Why are you asking us? after all we
voted for you to vote for us.” How wise those voices were.
16. It is here that
David Cameron went disastrously wrong. Not having learnt the lesson of the
Scottish Referendum he plunged into the new EU Referendum instead of waiting to
2017 as he promised because he was sure it was a walk-over. He wanted to finish
it before the German and French Elections and get on with fulfilling his
Manifesto while Osborne was succeeding in cutting the deficit and getting ready
for the succession. In fact if he waited for the new Governments of France and
Germany post their elections he could probably have squeezed better
terms.
17. All over the world
government leaders want to perpetuate their rules and secure their legacies by
fair means or foul. The USA is the one country that protected its leader constitutionally
from this character defect by restricting the Presidency to two terms of 8
years. In fairness David Cameron learning the lessons of Thatcher and Blair
announced that he was not going to run for a third term. But he was overtaken
and overwhelmed by events of his own making.
18. Philosophers and
political thinkers over the ages were puzzled and tried to understand how people
are swayed between Reason and Emotion. The root of Reason based on logic is in
our human nature. We are born with it. Emotion on the other hand is in our
acquired culture. We are tossed about between Reason and Emotion or between
Nature and Nurture.
Our emotional responses push aside our
reasoned arguments. Between reason and emotion the latter wins. Durkheim, Freud
and especially his nephew Bernays understood and explained this to us. And that
was how the Public Relations Industry “PR” and packaging took off and took over
insidiously and subliminally and controlled our responses.
19. So how is this
question relevant to our argument? The answer is that while the Leavers played
on the emotional fear of immigration, the Remainers concentrated their efforts
on the reasoned economic benefits. So we the voters were tossed
about between Reason and Emotion. The emotional responses of the
majority pushed aside the economic reasoned insights
in favour of the emotional responses of the immigration. Between reason and emotion the latter won.
So What Now?
20. In the midst of
this turmoil we need stability and first and foremost in order to avoid widening
cracks in our democratic institutions and help us to face the consequences of
what Brexit could throw at us. And so while the Government
will have to deal with the nitty gritty of Brexit we need to reach to new ideas
and policies that will help to adjust our institutions and avoid in particular
the break up of the UK in the process. May be instead of the Iron Lady and the Ice Lady
we need to hark back for inspiration to Labour’s Red Queen and her call “In
Place of Strife” to repair and adjust our fracturing institutions.
21. There are in the
public domain some solutions that could constructively and positively reform our
political system to avoid a Class War and bring our electorate from
Trafalgar Square back into Westminster Hall. Bewildered Edmond Burk’s first
reaction to the French Revolution in 1789 was to condemn it. Why could not those
fiery French learn from our Glorious Revolution! Since those days our politics
were conducted gloriously in evolutionary steps going along with the grain of our
political cool temperament. It is in that
spirit that our steps we take now have to be in response to the political chaos
in which we find ourselves highlighted equally in their impact by the 2015 Elections and the 2016 Brexit
22. The Referendum
Results were fairly balanced 52/48. It will be advisable in dealing with the Brexit to remember this. True
democracy takes into account the minority side of the equation, and more so as
the difference between Leavers and Remainers is very small. The crisis in our democracy that the conduct of both Remainers and
Leavers exposed reflected the underlying more worrying division in our society
as reflected by the electorate in 2015.
23. Skipping over all
the minutiae of statistics that many commentators and academics are so fond of
and engrossed in, here are two glaring numbers from the 2015 results that tell
all : UKIP’s
3,881,1129 votes sent one MP to the Commons,
the Lib-Dems with 2,415,888 managed 8 MPs. Compare and contrast these with
1,454,436 SNP votes securing 56 MPs!! The analysis of the other Parties
demonstrates clearly the widening crack in our Electoral System of FPTP.
Solutions
through Evolution not Revolution
24. The ambitious
response to change to a pure PR System proved to gain neither traction nor
consensus. In fact if succeeded it would have created even more instability
So let us resort to the simple, practical and pragmatic TR The Total Representation
Electoral System which in essence can tweak the same FPTP without an upheaval.
The details of TR are in the public domain advocated and analysed succinctly
by Dr Ken Ritchie in his excellent book “Fixing our Broken
Democracy – The Case for Total Representation”
25. Basically TR is
the fusion of FPTP Constituency System with PR in the proportion of 80:20 or say
500:100 simply through the use of one ballot. Once it is explained it can prove to be possible even for the
present House of Commons to approve its introduction by simple majority to be
followed by an Inter Party Committee to deal with agreeing the details of its
application. That is the first and most
urgent step in order to restore to the House of Commons its prerogative to
represent all strands of political aspirations of the electorate.
26. It is also an
opportune time as the Boundary Commission is trying to adjust the number of voters in the constituencies to as equal
number of voters in each to eliminate the big disparity between them. So instead
of reducing the number of constituencies to 600 as proposed why not reduce that
number to 500 MPs introducing TR at the same time by creating 100 Party MPs. The
result will be 500 MPs from the constituencies elected by the Majoritarian FPTP
as is the case now and 100 Party Members of Parliament “PMPs” elected by the
combined number of votes lost in the same 500 Constituencies who did not succeed
to secure any representation in Parliament. In this way the 600 MPs of House of Commons will still have the same proposed number of 600
using a combination of the FPTP and Proportional Representation “PR” in the
ratio of 500 to 100.
27. The second
step is to restore to Parliament its representative power by
replacing the present appointed House of Lords with a smaller elected Revising House of 300 Members without infringing
on the ultimate authority of the House of Commons. Any one of the present Lords
can offer himself/herself as candidate for election for the new
House.
28. My detailed
proposals for a New House of Lords are based on totally elected 300 Lords in two
stages. The first stage is to select 150 from amongst the present lords on the
lines of the Blair/Cranborne procedure of 1998. These “stay behind Lords” will
supervise and guide the election of the first batch of 150 newly Elected Lords
under the Electoral System of Total Representation, TR. After say 5 years the
stay behind Lords will resign and will be replaced by the second batch of 150
Elected Lords. In this way continuity is maintained and the present functions of
the House of Lords preserved. Full details of the purpose and procedure are
contained in my Website. www.aharonnathan.com or just Google
: Aharon Nathan on the House of Lords.
29. The third step is
for the Parties to adopt the simple method of electing their Party Leaders as
described in my letter to the Times of 4 Nov 1980 above. Such a Leader is to lead the elected MPs of that
party in the Commons. That does not preclude electing a president or chairman to
a party or movement outside the Commons that includes within its ranks the
elected members of a Party in Parliament.
The
above three
steps can transform our political system gently and peacefully avoiding strife
and upheavals by bringing the elected MPs and the elected Lords inside the tent
of our accountable Parliament to represent and guard the wishes of all our
electorate.
Aharon
Nathan, Wimbledon,
August 2016