A tale of two referenda

The call last week for a referendum on the UKs membership of the European Union and yesterdays announced referendum by the Greek Prime Minister on the proposed bailout and austerity package, draws an interesting parallel.  Referenda are both rare and divisive, especially in the UK.  The reason for the former is that they are not a particular good way of making decisions as they have questionable democratic value.  The reason for the latter is that they usually present a binary offer – in/out, yes/no – as demonstrated by the Electoral Reform referendum last May.  This is hardly conducive of a balanced and moderate discussion in which all possible options are examined.  As an example the recent calls from Euro-sceptics called for a yes/no on EU membership, it was only later after much opposition that a third option in a referendum was considered.

The purpose of a representative democracy is to appoint experts to make decisions on the people’s behalf.  During its passage through the Commons a prospective law is examined philosophically in debates in the chamber, practically as evidence is gathered and considered by committees and technically during its various readings, including a line by line examination.  The vast majority of people have neither the time nor expertise to properly weigh up matters as complex as EU membership nor scrutinise a Parliamentary Bill; besides they are often lost in the fog of misinformation such as that propagated by the media and groups such as UKIP and the BNP.  That’s why we ask politicians to make complex decisions on our behalf.

Similarly referenda can descend into ridiculous arguments such as that over AV; even its supporters weren’t fans of AV but they chose to support the compromise they were offered.  There was no third, fourth or fifth alternative.  This creates two issues; polarised arguments that get lost in emotional propaganda designed to confuse voters.  As the rhetoric is ratcheted up, each side becomes entrenched in polarised positions that present the argument in black and white when it should be shades of grey.  

Secondly, they are fundamentally undemocratic.  Those setting the referenda have decided the policy options prior to the vote taking place; they’re value is somewhat illusory or at best, their application extremely limited.  Those voting aren’t deciding an issue, their deciding which of the politicians decisions to endorse.  For example, the AV referendum was not based on sound analysis of evidence, but a political compromise.  To be truly democratic, it should have offered a range of different systems.  

That point aside, the conclusion to be drawn is that direct democracy in the form of referenda is often not a good approach and is thought with problems as attested to by the call for a vote on EU membership.  However the situation in Greece offers a very different situation and challenges this perception.  At this stage a referendum seems not only politically the right thing to do, but morally also; economically it is likely to prove a disaster.

Politically, the Government is offering the people the opportunity to reject or accept the actions of their government.  The current situation in which the Government is essentially working in spite of its population, can’t continue.  The population are clearly rejecting its current actions; the offer of a vote will allow them to make their view clear.  Morally, its imperative; what happens in the coming months will shape Greece for generations to come, if it hasn’t already.  The austerity measures and bailout package or the alternative – default and withdrawal from the Euro – will shape the fundamental nature of Greece for the next few decades.  In such a situation, a referendum seems appropriate.

Economically it is likely to cause further problems as markets react badly in the short-term and if a default were to occur, we are likely to see a major Lehman-style credit event.  But this is the whole recession writ large; the subtext of the last three years has been the tension between democracy and economics.  Our reliance on the financial sector and its lack of accountability, the socialisation of the bank bailout, ongoing debates over 50p tax rates are all symptoms of this relationship that has faltered now that crisis has arrived.

Can we draw a distinction between Euro-sceptic wishful thinking – that we can maintain our current trading terms and level of influence while withdrawing from every other element of European union – and the crisis besetting Greece?  If we can, it’s by drawing a distinction between the technical debate of one and the philosophical nature of the other.  This might be a false dichotomy, the Euro-sceptics certainly see our membership of the EU as a philosophical issue and the bailout package is certainly technical in most senses of the word.

Perhaps instead it comes down to what is at stake.  The Greeks are voting on the future shape of their society, the social contract, the economic settlement.  The experience of post-Soviet Russia and Argentina demonstrate quite how desperate and fundamentally different things may become.  Withdrawal from the EU would be just another chapter in the UKs steady post-war decline, our economy suffering significantly and our global influence diminishing dramatically.  Whatever your view, it’s hard to begrudge Greeks an opportunity to influence the austerity that’s tearing their society apart.

You don't have to be a republican to find the Royal Wedding offensive

Today billions of people worldwide will be watching the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton .  It’s indisputably an historic event as the likely future head of the British state, William Windsor, marries his future Queen Consort.  The blanket, unquestioning media coverage will no doubt grate with republicans - who wish to see an end to the British monarchy - but it should also sit uneasily with a much wider audience.  The wedding is a celebration of all that is wrong with Britain today; a lack of democracy, support for despotic regimes and inherited privilege.  

Alarmingly the wedding endorses the flouting of human rights offenders.  As is protocol for such events, several representatives from nations that regularly flout the human rights of their subjects will be in attendance at Westminster Abbey.  We don’t only sell arms to dictators, we also invite them and their contemporaries to Royal Weddings.  Its like Greenpeace inviting former BP head Tony Hayward to its Christmas party.  At the eleventh hour the Syrian ambassador has had his invitation withdrawn due to the ongoing state sponsored violence taking place in Syria, but representatives from Bahrain and other Middle East governments will still be in attendance to fly the flag for despotism.

The Royal Wedding is not an official state event and as such there are no official rules or conventions on who should be invited.  Therefore extending an invitation to representatives of unsavoury regimes is indefensible.  The counter argument to this is that the wedding should avoid becoming politicised or influenced by current affairs.  But the guest list has been openly politicised already; former Prime Ministers have been invited based upon partisan association.  Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, both former labour Prime Ministers have not received an invitation; unlike former Conservative PMs Margaret Thatcher and John Major.

The monarchy is anti-democratic.  The current Queen and future King of Great Britain have no democratic mandate to be Head of State, having been neither elected nor appointed by the people that they supposedly represent.  In fact, numerous despots from around the globe such as Robert Mugabe and Colonel Gaddaffi can at least claim that a portion of their populations have voted for them at some point.  It’s a terribly poor mandate with little or no legitimacy, but its more than the  British monarchy can claim.

The British monarch may have limited actual power, but they are still the head of the British state and play a central role in its constitution.  It seems contradictory that a nation can claim to be democratic and conduct military operations overseas to ‘spread’ democracy yet persists in having an unelected head of state.  It’s incredibly hypocritical; any organisation that has as its head a person that goes against its fundamental principles should not be taken seriously. 

The Royal Wedding is anti-meritocratic.  William Windsor will be the next king of Great Britain because of his parentage, not his achievements, qualifications or suitability for the role.  The medieval concept of hereditary power runs contrary to the notion that Britain is, ostensibly, a meritocratic nation.  The Royal Wedding is ultimately a celebration of privilege and how by marrying Prince William, Kate Middleton and any future children stand to inherit incredible opportunity for generations to come.

The wedding is also anti-meritocratic for its propagation of the myth that Kate Middleton is ‘normal’ or ‘one of us’.  I won’t attempt to define what ‘normal’ actually means in modern Britain, but it’s worth considering the educational history of Kate Middleton.  Those born to parents in professional occupations are 60% more likely to go to university in the UK.  Kate Middleton attended private school, something only done so by 7% of the British population.  This in turn increased the chances of attending prestigious university such as St Andrews which takes approximately 40% of its intake from private schools. Those attending state school therefore face a significant challenge in winning a place at universities such as St Andrews and having the opportunity to romp around with a prince.   

Kate Middleton hasn’t had a proper job since 2006, other than working for her millionaire parents' mail order company.  A good life for those that can get it, though again, not particularly meritocratic.  The idea that she is normal, and therefore it could happen to you or your friends or family, is not only laughable but damaging.  It reinforces the sexist message that the only true way for women to achieve social mobility is by marrying a prince, or more latterly, a wealthy footballer.

The wedding has sadly also overshadowed the ongoing debate on electoral reform.  Admittedly electoral reform is a dry subject compared to the glamour of a wedding, yet the former is infinitely more important as it is a chance to make Britain more democratic. That such a frivolous spectacle should find greater traction with the British people is not only sad, but reveals the worrying prevalence of deference in Britain.  We’re prepared to celebrate the marriage of our ‘betters’, yet when offered more democratic control over government we’re simply not interested.

The most spurious claim in defence of the wedding and the Royal family is their supposed economic benefit;  they attract tourists providing a major boost to our economy.  There is a clear economic benefit from such occasions and the Monarchy in general, but the same can be said of the legalisation of Heroin.  Just because something makes money, doesn’t make it right.  Strangely, the palace of Versailles still attracts thousands of tourists each year, despite the fact that France has been a republic for the best of part of the last 220 years following the beheading of its monarchy. 

Tyranny of the minority: A vote for AV is a vote for democracy

For those that want a more democratic Britain, a vote for the Alternative Vote on 5th May is the only option

The campaign for the Alternative Vote has continued to sink into the mire in recent days, becoming bogged down in disputes over funding and personality clashes.  As Paddy Ashdown points out, its mudslinging at its worst, attempting to distort the real debate that should be taking place.  Electoral reform is a hugely important issue that should arguably have been passed without referendum; it’s about making politics fair.  Britain has a long way to go in this area; from the monarchy to the House of Lords; AV represents another small step along the path.

The motivation to mudsling is obvious; the Alternative Vote is indisputably more democratic than the current First Past the Post system (FPTP).  Despite this, the ‘yes’ campaign have struggled to get this deceptively simple message across, instead focussing on ‘clearing up’ politics and other appears to the ire of the public in the wake of the expenses scandal.  

The ‘no’ campaign have resorted to scaremongering and smear as their arguments for FPTP cannot withstand vigorous examination.  Before considering why they are so weak, it’s important to point out the virtues of AV as an improvement on FPTP, but also note that it is far from a panacea to the ills of democracy in Britain.

The classic justification for representative democracy (whereby you elect someone to make decisions on your behalf) over other forms of government (such as dictatorship) is that it is the least worst system.  Democracy as we know it is imperfect, the best of a bad bunch as it necessitates the ‘tyranny of the majority’.  Simply, a majority of people impose their views and or beliefs on the remaining minority.  It’s an unavoidable and undesirable consequence; in a perfect pluralistic world everyone’s viewpoint and beliefs would be acknowledged and implemented.  Practically, this just doesn’t work.  But most can agree that majority rules is probably the best system available, utilised as it is in homes, playgrounds and workplaces on a daily basis across the Western world.

Sadly, FPTP actually helps to deliver a ‘tyranny of the minority’, a situation whereby a minority impose their views and beliefs on the remaining majority.  Minority rule is clearly not the best of a bad bunch.  The Labour landslide of 1997 was achieved with 43% of the popular vote; therefore 57% - a clear majority – did not vote for Labour but were saddled with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for thirteen years. 

Under FPTP only one vote per person is counted, so more often than not where there is a plurality of candidates the vote is split so that no one person receives over 50% of the votes in any one constituency.  Therefore, the candidate with the largest minority wins, the overall majority lose. 

AV changes this; by counting second (and third, and fourth etc) preferences it ensures that over 50% of the electorate – a majority - have had a say in the result.  Their ‘say’ may be a second or third preference vote, but it is still influence over the result and some form of endorsement for the winner.  Admittedly this is not a perfect system or as fair as Proportional Representation (PR), but it’s certainly fairer than FPTP.

FPTP is an outdated system that is designed for elections in which the majority of individuals vote for two major parties.  That stopped happening in the UK from the 1980s onwards; where once 90% voted for Labour or Conservative now it’s just 65%.  It discriminates minority parties at a time when more and more choose to vote for them.  Some have derided Liberal Democrat support for electoral reform as mere self interest.  That may be the case but it is also true that a party that wins 20% of the popular vote should have 20% of the seats in parliament, not less than 10% as they currently do.  AV would not fix this anomaly entirely, but it would redress the balance at least partially.

One of the chief criticisms of AV is that it could deliver more hung parliaments and coalitions (this is a fallacy, FPTP has delivered several hung parliaments in the UK and more in Australia than AV has).  Somewhat comically, this has left David Cameron arguing against something he proclaimed barely a year ago to be positive.  The truth is, coalitions are often fairer as they consider a wider range of views; a majority of the UK voted for Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats.  Therefore a majority of the UK have been able to shape government.  And the idea that coalitions are unable to push through policy has been debunked by the success of Michael Gove’s potentially radical education policies, for example.

Supporters of FPTP also claim that cost should prevent us from implementing AV; we shouldn't switch to a system that costs more than the current one.  What they fail to point out is that having a dictator would be cheaper than FPTP, but that doesn't make it desirable. 

The other draw backs of FPTP include its ability to create MPs for life, who sit in safe seats with a comfortable largest minority.  Although AV won’t eliminate this situation, it will reduce the propensity for it to happen.  FPTP also creates an adversarial dynamic in British politics which at worst precludes and at best discourages multilateral approaches to policy.  AV will at least encourage candidates to consider the views of their opposition’s supporters in the hope of collecting second preferences.  Therefore policy will hopefully be more nuanced and considered and require robust justification.

The history of constitutional and electoral reform in Britain stretches as far back as the Magna Carta and has been a journey of incremental change for the best part of a thousand years.  The Alternate Vote is far from perfect, but it is another small improvement and a further step toward a fairer way of conducting politics in Britain.  The AV referendum should be elevated above petty concerns of giving Nick Clegg or David Cameron a kicking; the consequences of the referendum will still be reverberating long after both of their careers have ended.

What is the role of government?

Reaction to the leaked US diplomatic cables reveals an uncomfortable truth in the attitude of those elected to represent us

The perceived roles of government are diverse and differ depending on to whom you speak.  For some the role of government is to provide jobs and a stable economy, for others it’s there to support the disadvantaged and vulnerable via the welfare state, for others its simply exists to provide a stable environment in which the economy can grow and private organisations can profit; by producing a growing consumer base, a suitably educated workforce or in extremis defending the realm.  For most, it’s probably a mixture of all of the above.

On a more fundamental level the role of government is much simpler, defined by a basic principle, upon which competing interpretations of its functions and priorities compete.  For those fortunate enough to live in a representative democracy (the overwhelming majority of Europe and the Americas) the primary function of government is to represent and serve those that have elected it.  The clue is in the name and it is ultimately answerable to the electorate.  For those executive functions and personnel that are not directly elected such as civil servants, their role is to serve the elected members who appoint them to assist in the service of the electorate.  This can be viewed as a linear relationship; at the top the electorate, below them the elected members (government ministers et al) that are elected to serve their interests and directly beneath the them at the bottom are the civil service that serve the government.  It’s a simplistic model, having no place for the private sphere, but it serves to illustrate the basic structure on which modern society is built.

The leaking of US diplomatic cables and Afghanistan files by Wikileaks during recent months have called into question the nature of the relationship between citizen and government.  Government officials, media and citizens from across the US, Europe, the Middle East and beyond have sought to criticise the leaks on two fronts; that they put lives in danger and that some information should not be shared with the public.  Diplomats and civil servants should, according to this analysis, be free to operate in secrecy above and beyond the knowledge and concerns of the citizens to whom they are ultimately answerable.  This represents a significant shift from the linear structure of the relationship between citizen, government and civil service described above to something considerably more ambiguous.  This new structure more clearly resembles an inverted pyramid; the electorate at the bottom and elected officials and the civil service above, side by side.  This structure illustrates that the  government and its unelected functions operate on an equal footing and in cooperation, neither directly responsible to each other or the electorate that serve them. 

To claim that this structure exists in reality rather than in the minds of those that have sought to criticise the leaks is actually a moot point.  More importantly the whole affair demonstrates that an attitude pervades both governments and media that free sharing of information is undesirable, that those in power should not have to adhere to principles of transparency nor be answerable to those that appointed them, to whom they are responsible.  This belief that ordinary citizens are incapable of understanding nor have the right to this information betrays an inherent arrogance and more than a whiff of authoritarianism.

This attitude has been further demonstrated in the pressure applied to private organisations that have provided support to Wikileaks.  The image of the internet as independent and beyond the power of governments has been utterly shattered as state pressure has been used to prohibit the actions of citizens, specifically from gaining knowledge of those appointed to serve them.  The United States has blocked access to the Wikileaks website, Mastercard and Visa have denied their customers across the globe the right to choose whether or not to spend their money supporting an independent organisation, knowledge of corrupt practices by Pfizer and Shell, which are undoubtedly in the public interest, are viewed as state secrets that should be hidden from the public.  That much of the information leaked is of little surprise or in many cases much tamer than expected, is inconsequential.  The image rendered is of insecure governments clinging desperately to as much control as possible as it slowly ebbs away.

Sadly the shift from in attitude from the linear to the inverted pyramid model described above may never have occurred.  It is perhaps more evident that the last century represents a shift toward a less authoritarian stance as education and knowledge continued to diffuse throughout societies and across national boundaries.  The post 9/11 authoritarian tendencies were a  reaction – that have since lost momentum - to external threats of a once in a generation magnitude  and the Freedom of Information act highlighted the desire for those in power to illustrate their transparency and good intentions (though Tony Blair’s confession that he now considers it a huge mistake is perhaps a hint of how power can breed arrogance).

That progress has been made toward the synchronization of what we are lead to believe and what actually occurs in reality is simply not enough; these insights into the machinations of power only serve to highlight that much more progress must be made.  If knowledge is power, then it is imperative that these leaked documents continue to pour into the public domain.