Why George Galloway’s Win Is Good For Politics

Congratulations to George Galloway for securing a huge victory in the Bradford West by-election; he is an inspiring speaker and a dedicated campaigner. This post talks briefly about what it is he stands for and why his election may have a positive impact in British politics.

Democracy In The 21st Century 2: Radical Optimism

The internet has transformed the way we talk, the way we message, the way we learn, the way we shop, and the way we do business, and it will change many more things in our lifetime.

The internet provides an abundance of choice and complete freedom of communication –
the ability to contact anyone in the world at any time at no cost.

Anyone with a computer can talk, buy, sell, and bank online with whomever they please. Everyone has access and instant choice between different vendors and different currencies at the click of a button. Anyone can create an online business and do business with people on the other side of the globe. Anyone can create online friendships and meet like-minded people, formulate groups and networks and consolidate public opinion. Anyone can create a web page and get their message heard; anyone with a camera phone can be a journalist; anyone can create a cause, a forum, a network, a movement, and make real changes. In other words, the internet enables real democracy.

Many say the West is in decline, but be best not to let these people scare you. Our belief in freedom, self determination and capitalism has given us a culture of creativity and innovation. This entrepreneurial nature, combined with the digital technology boom, will ensure that it is the west that pioneers the continued development of the free peoples of this planet; but we must be daring, and we must think positively.

There are ways of achieving more development AND more equality in our society, and they involve democratising certain public institutions in order to give equal rights to all who hold a stake in them. All of the issues that have led to the stagnation of the western economies can be solved with more democracy, and the internet makes this possible.

Going Through The Motions

Another referendum was announced today, much to the horror of the Brussels elite. As usual, such an event merits a special mention on Mighty Democracy.

Localism 4: The End Of The United Kingdom?

Now that the question of Scottish independence has reared its head, it seems apt to once again make the case for the dispersal of power.

As per usual this blog supports referendums, particularly on constitutional issues and the devolution of decision making. This post builds on the a series of previous posts about the concept of localism, that power should be devolved to the lowest practicable level, so that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the people they affect.

A greater degree of autonomy, and a more direct link between both citizens and their representatives and between taxation and expenditure, will revitalise Scottish democracy and give local people a greater sense of control and responsibility over their lives. If the Scottish people feel that their way of life differs significantly enough from the rest of the UK and that they would be freer as an independent state, they should go for it.

All The King’s Men 2: Diplomats

This is the second part in a series about the inherent ineffectiveness of certain government positions and the need to democratise their functions for the good of the country. The first part can be read here.

The decisions that emerge from diplomatic negotiations differ all too often from what the majority of people would have preferred if they had had their say. Imagine if the people had been consulted with regard to major foreign policy decisions in the past. Imagine if the British people themselves had decided whether or not Blair’s findings warranted an invasion of Iraq, for example. One could imagine a very different outcome. In fact generally speaking, almost any decision to initiate war stems from the concentration of power, and would be rejected by the majority. In most situations, people would rather we just minded our own business.

The vast majority of diplomatic duties, being negotiations about peacekeeping, business and trade links and energy deals, international treaties, foreign embassies, visas and tourism etc, are almost entirely in the hands of specialist ambassadors and their teams of diplomats.

Diplomats collect and report information about the foreign country in which they are posted and give advice to the home country on how best to set foreign policy. They are then tasked with conveying the views of their home country’s government, in the best way possible, so that the host country might act in ways that please the home country’s interests. Without a doubt, diplomats are highly trained and highly skilled individuals. Over many years they have honed their diplomatic style and long term strategy, and the combination of knowledge and experience gives them unique capabilities in their job that should by no means be belittled.

However, even with such highly respected ‘experts’ at the helm, much of our foreign policy even nowadays is contrary to common sense, and would be significantly different if the majority of people had their say in the matter. You don’t need to be a specialist in Persian studies to realise that trying to gently persuade the Ayatollahs into quitting Iran’s nuclear ambitions is a waste of time, though it took the government long enough to come to its senses. You don’t need to have done extensive research about Israeli and Palestinian relations to understand that if Israel is in the UN, then Palestine should be too, regardless of whether or not negotiations are ongoing or if conflict will continue, which it inevitably will. You don’t need to be a tri-lingual European historian nor a Colonial and Commonwealth specialist to realise that in today’s globally interlinked economy, Britain has closer ties with Canada, Australia and India than it does with Germany, Italy and Poland, and that spending a lot of time, money and effort on EU integration might just be a bit narrow-minded.

In fact, the high specialisation and specific expertise that these diplomats possess, and the fact that they spend so much time abroad and in the company of other diplomats, may actually impair their understanding of Britain’s true interests. Even in today’s twenty first century, with internet and TV allowing millions of people to take part in worldwide debates, our foreign policy is frequently misunderstood. So what changes need to be made to better align foreign policy decisions with public opinion?

Highlights From The Commons 24/10/11

This post is simply a small collection of four of the ‘best bits’ from the recent EU referendum debate in the House of Commons, in which many powerful speeches were made. The debate lasted some five hours before being put to the vote in which 111 MPs defied their party lines and voted yes to hold a national referendum on our membership with the European Union; 483 MPs voted no. The nos have it, the nos have it.

Κάνουμε το πατριωτικό μας καθήκον

Today has been a mighty day for democracy. The Prime Minister of Greece, George Papandreou, announced earlier that he will put the new bailout and debt write-down package to the Greek people in a referendum. Finally, the people of Greece are being allowed to have their say in their future. "The command of the Greek people will bind us," says Papandreou.

In recent months, the country has been surviving hand to mouth from EU bailout financing in order to prevent a default on sovereign debt that would send a shockwave across the other European economies. But the bailout funding has not been without strings attached. Representatives from the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission, who have come to be known as ‘the troika,’ have been making regular trips to Athens to evaluate and oversee the progress of austerity measures and public sector reforms designed to reduce the budget deficit but which so far have only plunged the country deep into recession. Athens and other major Greek cities have seen massive riots and demonstrations against austerity measures and most blame the current government for selling them out to overseas dictators. Without a referendum, a peace offering to the people, Papandreou will most probably be unable to avoid early elections.

The referendum will allow the Greek people to approve the latest deal proposed at the summit last week, details of which are still pending, but will provisionally be a new €100bn bailout loan and a 50% write-down of Greek government debt held by private creditors. The referendum may, in the end, boil down to whether or not Greece will remain inside the Euro or not. If they accept the bailout package, it will mean years of austerity and financial hardship. If they reject it, it will mean full default, chaos, and a serious reassessment of their European relationship. More importantly, it will allow Greece to regain some dignity and decide for herself what the next move shall be. 

Whatever the outcome, the fact that the government has finally realised it cannot go on ignoring the people, bodes well for democracy as a whole and greatly strengthens the case for referendums in other countries too. Let it be the first of many.

A Historic Opportunity

On October 27th, there will be a historic vote in Parliament about whether or not the British people should be given a referendum on our membership with the European Union. This subject is bigger than me or you, bigger than the prime minister and bigger than any one political party. It is about the future sovereignty of our nation and is an issue about which our generation has never been able to have our say. There are members of all parties that oppose the UK’s membership in its current form and the vote could be very close. Note that the vote in parliament next week has nothing to do with whether or not we should remain in the EU, it is merely to decide whether or not the people should be allowed to have their say on the matter. Quite unquestionably, we should.

The next eight days are crucial. It is an MP’s job to represent their constituents in parliament and they should, theoretically, vote according to the wishes of the people they represent. By writing to your MP (you can find out who she is and send an email here), and piling on the pressure over the coming days, then at the very least they cannot use the claim that their constituents do not care about the issue as an excuse to vote against the motion. Send an email, and urge them, politely, to vote for the motion. The very fact that we must campaign in order to get our say on something so important for the future of our country is, in itself, slightly disheartening. But now is not the time for self pity, it is the time for action! 

Please spread the word.




Link >> Some of the highlights of the debate.

Localism 3: Lessons From The USA

When you hear the word ‘sheriff’ you imagine a typical American local law enforcement officer wearing a brown uniform, a cowboy style hat and a gold badge, right? Well, it’s coming to the UK. In November of next year people in England and Wales will be able to directly elect the local Sheriff to govern the police force in your area. OK, their official title will actually be “police and crime commissioners,” but I’m hoping that the word Sheriff catches on. These new figures will be locally elected officials who are able to appoint and remove chief constables and set budgets and policing priorities. These radical new reforms being implemented by the government are part of their localism agenda to restructure the police force in order to develop the type of ‘more police on the beat’ zero-tolerance policing that the public have long desired. 

Democracy In The 21st Century

Once upon a time in England, the fastest form of communication between different towns was to send a messenger. The king would dispatch a young lad on horseback with a sealed scroll to deliver his mandate to the regions. “Here ye, hear ye, the King demands this that and the rest of it..” In these ancient times bereft of technology, it made sense to have a ruler sitting in his castle in the south, controlling a central location for meetings, discussions and decision making for the country. 

Jumping forward in time to fifty sixty years ago, even when the greatest forms of communication had advanced to the telephone and the fax machine, one could still just about make a case for a system of centralised decision making by the institutions of our central government. After all, democracy can never be perfect; it would simply be unfeasible for everyone to have their say in politics by sending letters or making phone calls. It made sense for each region to send someone to London to speak on our behalf, and then all of the elected representatives of the country would make the laws together.

Well, we are now in the 21st century, where anyone with an interest in the goings-on around them and an internet connection can take part in a worldwide debate. Just as digital cameras and mobile phones give potentially anyone the ability to be a journalist, the blogging culture has turned anyone into a potential writer capable of publishing and distributing opinion throughout the country. Through the internet, people can easily find the website, chat room or online society that can connect them with the individuals or organisations in the country that think in the same way that they do and that share the same opinions. It is now practically possible for the public to have some form of direct input into politics. We can have online opinion polls and the public consensus can be easily determined. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age for there to be a separation between the opinion of the public and the way in which we are represented in parliament. It no longer makes sense to have a ruling establishment in Whitehall that do not listen to, discuss and execute the exact will of the people. The people are out there right now, on the internet, blogging, debating and congregating, trying to make themselves heard.

We need to open up democracy. We need to get it on the internet, in a controlled way so that everyone can have their say in the issues that matter to them.

Now by this I don’t mean getting rid of representation. We can’t give decision making totally to the people. Most of the population don’t have an interest in politics and are not bothered about voting for everything. We can at least, however, open up the system of representation. We need to put it online, on a public website where you can log on and see the representative for your constituency, see what his or her policies and priorities are, and open up wider debates about them. This way, the person that represents us will be exactly the person who shares the views of the people and vows to uphold them in parliament. If he or she did not prioritise our views, or if she voted against the views of the constituency, we would be able to discuss why in online forums and vote to depose her. We could even have online candidacy for MPs, so that anyone who better suits the role of representing the people in a given constituency can challenge the current incumbent for the job.

This may seem radical, and indeed it is relative to our archaic system of democracy that fails to deliver on so many of the current issues of today. But the sooner we start thinking in the 21st century and revolutionise our democracy, the better it will be for everyone.


Read On >>>>>> Democracy in the 21st century: Part 2 

Localism 2: What Is A Quango?

Where does the power lie in Britain? Long gone are the days of the autocratic reign of the monarch. So too have the days of the Prime Minister and his inner circle of ‘chaps,’ sitting on a sofa in Downing Street running the country, right? 


Well we certainly have a functioning democracy now, but it is far from perfect. Our legislation is still read and amended by the unelected House of Lords, composed of hereditary peers born into power, chosen lobbyists and trade unionists and archbishops etc. The prime minister still possesses unprecedented powers through the ‘Crown Prerogative’ to appoint ministers and even take us to war without consulting the people. 


Additionally and most importantly, the role of parliament has slowly been eroded to the point where vast amounts of legislation no longer come from elected representatives but instead from a network of government organisations, a web of state bodies that exercise power outside of the democratic system.

*

Quasi-autonomous non-Governmental Organisations (Quangos) have been an integral part of the UK public sector for many decades. There are lots of them. You probably know of a few by the acronyms, the FSA, the FCO etc. Most of them are worthwhile organisations that fulfill a necessary function. Many of them however, perform a function with no real need or duplicate functions that could be performed by other existing quangos. However, the most crucial aspect of the quango is the lack of accountability to the people who are affected by the quango’s decisions. This means that they have little incentive to do their job especially well.

Many governments have promised a quango cull and so far this government has at least made a start. As part of the deficit reduction plan, and as part of their broader localism agenda, the current government has pledged ‘a bonfire of the quangos’ to cut spending and abolish many of these unessential organisations, while simultaneously giving power back to local people and local authority figures. For example, RDAs (regional development agencies) promote economic development by enhancing business competitiveness and skills application. There are currently eight of them, for different regions of England excluding London which has its own development organisations. The government plans to reduce spending by dismantling these regional agencies and encouraging the formation of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to carry out some of the functions currently carried out by RDAs.

The QCDA, Qualifications and Curriculum Development Authority, that once monitored the national curriculum, and the GTCE, General Teaching Council for England, that once regulated the state school system, will too both be consigned to history. The government plans to reinstall their functions and responsibility with school headmasters and directors, giving them the power to set curriculums and regulate their own testing procedures. The idea is that the people responsible for the decision making should be in direct contact with the people affected by the decisions. This way when a headmaster is approached by an agitated group of parents demanding something be done about the school curriculum or testing, they can no longer reply with “I’m sorry, nowadays that’s all dealt with by the associate board for whatever, or the national council for whatever.” With power, should come responsibility and accountability to the people.

The quango ‘argument,’ i.e. the question of their usefulness and effectiveness stems from the age old left vs. right debate. Free marketers will proclaim, as demonstrated in history, that in general, government is poor at business; that public sector organisations are slow, wasteful, driven by compliance targets and lacking the fundamental incentive of personal profit that drives efficiency. Advocates of state interventionism will reinforce the necessity for centrally planned regulation and standardisation to ensure fairness and coordinated oversight of public issues. Both arguments have their merits but there is also a deeper underlying democratic issue that needs to be considered.

The delegation of power to these organisations and the growth and reach of their influence has allowed ministers to distance themselves ever further from responsibility and accountability by effectively passing their executive power to the quangos. Even without consideration of the economic benefits of a more competitive landscape for the people and organisations that run our country, one can at least appreciate how the existence of these organisations, and the wide range of responsibilities delegated to their control, separates the voter even further from the source of the decision making, undermining the democratic legitimacy of the regulations passed by these organisations. In other words, the law makers are not accountable to us. They have no obligation to the people. We cannot sack them.

In many ways, for reasons outlined here, the European Union is the biggest quango of them all, if you like, the quango to end all quangos. It proceeds to suck the decision making capabilities from accountable elected parliaments to unaccountable institutions funded by the EU itself.

We cannot let the democracy of the United Kingdom be constantly undermined by unaccountable bodies led by unknown unelected bureaucrats, legislating over the British people from the shadows. We need to transfer power back to elected representatives, those that are accountable to the people. We need to make sure that quangos are only created in cases where they are absolutely necessary, and even then, that their agendas and budgets are monitored and approved by parliament and that their continuation in the future is re-evaluated each year.

But this is just the first step, if you will, in establishing a better functioning democracy. Once the power is back in the hands of the elected representative, there is then the issue of making sure that the elected representative is a true representative of the represented and not a pawn to the many other forces at work.

Here Douglas Carswell makes the case for more direct democracy and more open competition in politics:

Our Glorious Leaders

Why vote? Does anyone trust these people that rule our world? They have made a bloody mess of things. The economy is in turmoil, again. But still these people cannot learn from their mistakes. It is pretty well established now that the problem is debt. As you are well aware, the world’s economies have been borrowing large amounts from each other to finance economic growth. Governments have borrowed to fund public spending on new state industry, infrastructure, administration, research and grand events. Banks have borrowed vast amounts from each other to finance their investments and lend on to other companies and entrepreneurs. Although this has contributed to much growth in the short term, quite visibly, it is not sustainable.

Welcome

Welcome to Mighty Democracy. This blog aims to cover a range of interests concerning the power of democracy, the effectiveness of democracy, as well as the methods that we, the people, have at our disposal to make a change and overcome the forces that seek to undermine democracy.

Many of the posts will be primarily from a UK perspective. Comments, comparisons and criticisms from other viewpoints are nonetheless very much welcome.

---

Who did you vote for in the last general election? Ask yourself why you voted for who you did. Perhaps you didn’t vote at all.

In fact only 65% of registered voters turned up to vote in the last election of May 2010. Voter turnout increases with age, unsurprisingly, and in the 18-24 and 25-34 age brackets these figures were only 44% and 55% respectively.

So why do people choose not to vote? Some people have little or no interest in political issues and therefore have no real basis to distinguish between candidates. This is likely true for most of the younger abstainers. Some do not see how their single vote can make a difference. This is perhaps due to flaws in the First Past The Post system used in the UK which tends to favour a two party system, meaning that any vote cast for any party other than the two most popular in each constituency, can seem wasted.

Many, however, have simply lost faith in the system. Many people don’t see that it matters who wins the election in their constituency. Many do not believe that the MP that represents them actually has much power in transferring the wishes of the constituents into change for the better. In other words, they no longer believe in the effectiveness of democracy, the same democracy that has long been a central virtue of UK government, the same democracy that our grandparents fought and died to protect from nationalist and socialist tyranny in the 20^th century.

Democracy is defined as – government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. To what extent, therefore, do you think that our system of government in the UK is a democracy? Do you feel like ‘the people’ can exercise power through their elected agents? Is the popular opinion of the people justly reflected in public policy? Or are decisions often made contrary to the wishes of the public? Imagine if a nationwide referendum was the norm for all significant decisions that would affect the lives of all citizens. Imagine if we had had our say in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 or the UK’s participation in the ongoing European political union.

The government must have a fairly good idea what the outcome of a referendum will be before it is carried out. It is also plausible that the issue at hand requires a deeper level of understanding and political/historical knowledge to make a wise decision, and that perhaps those in power choose to involve fewer people in the decision making process for our own best interests. However, should it not be up to these very people to make us understand why a decision is being made, especially if it contrary to popular opinion? The definition on Wikipedia also includes the following sentence – Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.

This suggests Direct Democracy as an ideal democratic model. Meaning that we, ordinary citizens, would have much more involvement in the law making process, people would have real power to elect and depose representatives and our elected representatives would hold real power to realise our desires for change. Power would be devolved to the lowest practicable level, or the most feasible local level, with a much higher focus on communities and local responsibility.

Now, this all sounds wonderful, but in reality it is not as easy as it seems. Power is never yielded so easily. Those with executive power may voice their support for local governments but it difficult to resist state interference when it suits their wider public relations agenda.

The practicalities and possible effects of giving power to the people, the differences between the UK government and other democracies in the world, and real examples of power devolution in the past, will all be future topics of Mighty Democracy.