Democracy is meant to be about running the country for the benefit of its inhabitants - avoiding the inevitable questions as to how we define these - through a system of votes. It encourages mature debate instead of violence and allows involvement by the people.
As citizens, we are allowed a vote - one person one vote - every five years (ish) to elect an MP who then represents our interests. They, or rather their party, puts together a ragbag of ideas in a Manifesto which consists of a variety of things we detest - such as allowing fox hunting - alongside things we like - such as cutting taxes. We have to take the rough with the smooth, holding our nose over the things we detest or don't understand, and emphasising to our consciences the things with which we agree.
The MPs then get on with the job of running the country, implementing the Manifesto and taking as little notice of us as they feel they can get away with, unless the media - acting as our self-appointed agents - decide to stir up dissent.
Gosh! That sounds exciting and involving. No wonder countries around the world are keen to become democracies.
As we have seen over the last twelve months, it does not always work smoothly.
You do not have to look much further than the unnecessary, appalling, ill-thought through and divisive referendum in the UK which was characterised by blatant lies and half truths. Because it cost a lot of money and despite what we were told at the time, it has been accepted as valid. Just over half of those who voted (27% of the total population) voted to leave the EU. Just under half voted to stay. So the Leavers won.
That is called 'doing what the majority want'. How could we have believed a result based on such incoherent 'facts'?
Neither side had offered a plan of any sort - and the vast majority of the pre-vote promises of the 'winning' side have already been denied as having been 'illustrative' without any acceptance that this might in any way invalidate the result.
We were told that the referendum result was, as much as anything, a cry of protest from the voters at the 'whole system'. Strange: if they did not like the system, why had they voted in a Tory government only the year before?
The referendum was followed by the 'democratic' election of Donald Trump in the USA. His vile campaign was surrounded by lies and emotion which steam-rollered any mature debate. And yet people voted him in (or, if we believe the conspiracy theorists, the Russians fiddled the IT systems so that he won).
It is the era of the 'strong' leader - almost the antithesis of real democracy. President Erdogan of Turkey seized the opportunity to hold a referendum on giving him extra powers, thus initiating the fragmentation of the secular democracy created by Attaturk. He seems headed on a path which will turn him into a tin-pot dictator; no doubt as 'President for Life'. Kim Jong-Un would be proud of him.
They are all following the route of Vladimir Putin who knows a thing or two about manipulating the press, locking up rivals and muzzling free speech. Our own new Prime Minister seems to be following suit, arguing that any opposition or questioning is unacceptable.
David Cameron's resignation after the referendum left a vacancy for a new Prime Minister. All the senior figures of the Leave side were so tarnished by the lies that no one could countenance them as leader. Theresa May swallowed her pride, crossed the floor to Leave and simultaneously fulfilled her very obvious ambition to be the big boss.
We, the people, were given no say in the choice of the new leader matter. Why should we? The Tories were simply re-arranging their deckchairs. They believe it is their 'natural destiny' to rule, after all.
Other 'Remain MPs' followed her lead, turned their coats and have been proclaiming their loyalty to Brexit like born-again Christians, often in the teeth of the declared wishes of their constituencies. So much for principled politics.
Having said she would not call an election, Theresa May changed her mind, spurned the Fixed Term Parliament Act, to suit her own agenda - and that of her party - showing that her grasp on fair dealing was as fragile as the other quasi-dictators.
The resulting general election is now being fought as a presidential election with letters from Theresa saying 'Vote XX, my candidate'. No Theresa, an MP is actually 'our' candidate.
She billed it as the Brexit election and yet there has been almost no mention of Brexit by the various parties, mainly because the Tories have refused to discuss their 'strategy'. Perish the thought that we might actually know what we are voting for. All we are allowed to vote on, in her view, is who might lead the negotiations.
Why do I get the strong impression that the Tories do not actually have a plan, any more than Leave had a plan before the referendum?
To make matters worse, the Tory strategy, guided by the malign Wizard of Aus, seems to consist of five elements:
- A series of mind-numbingly dull and vacuous sound bites of which 'strong and stable' outscores most others
- Very personal attacks on Jeremy Corbyn
- Putting words into others' mouths to reinforce the personal attacks
- Avoidance of questions from any genuine voter, or interviews on television or radio
- Malicious, unmediated messaging on social media
All this subverts democracy in a way which the Bolsheviks and Nazis would recognise. Both won power through the ballot box and then changed the rules to suit.
Despite arrogant Anglo-Saxon beliefs, democracy is not a book of rules. It is a fragile flower which requires hard work and nurture. It requires honesty and involves trust: trust which is now sadly lacking as MPs are revealed to have some very human frailties.
Ah, we are told, the UK has the 'mother of parliaments' and invented parliamentary democracy. So it must be the best. Yes, but that was a few hundred years ago. Things have changed since then. Others have found some improvements which may be worth considering.
The last big change was the Great Reform Act of 1867. Yes, we have 'given' women the vote and a few other niceties since then but the basic model has not changed. Did I just write that? 'The basic model has not changed much' in 150 years?
In 1867, there was no mass communication. News of events in London would take days to reach all parts of the kingdom. Polling did not exist. Telephones did not exist although Twitter-length messages could be sent by telegram.
MPs had to be delegates. They were elected to represent the views of their constituents in a general way, not issue by issue for there was no way to keep closely in touch with them. They were trusted to make up their own minds and do the best for their voters. Few, probably, were able to spend each weekend in their constituencies, talking and listening.
This same model has served us since then. But today we live in a world of instant mass communications, surrounded by social media in all its forms, of polling, of broadcast media, of 24 hour news.
Could it be that the systems of the mid C19 might no longer be suitable in the C21? I surely cannot be suggesting that some improvements might be possible? No, the UK never likes such things. Sir Humphrey would never approve.
And what about the rise in unmediated social media and its love of spreading fake news? Or the domination of the media by a few very biased individuals? Or the opportunities offered by instant communications?
As the opportunities for communication have increased, so have the powers of the party whips. It is unthinkable for a modern MP not to obey his or her whip: certainly if they want to have any sort of career within the party. Parties have become monolithic, inspiring devoted and unswerving loyalty in the teeth of reason, rational analysis or truth. Spin doctors have become past-masters at dealing with inconvenient truths that occasionally rear their heads.
As the referendum has shown, we live in an age when the majority sees itself as having a divine right to rule: the thuggish tyranny of the majority. 'You lost, get over it'.
Many of us struggle to remember when our vote last counted in an election. We simply shrug our shoulders and wear t-shirts emblazoned 'Don't blame me I voted XX'.
The winners argue that a majority gives them a 'strong government' which can get things done: and never mind the views of anyone else.
This is not what democracy is supposed to be about. Yes, the will of the majority should prevail but it should take into account the views of the minorities. It should be tested in debate and discussion. It is not meant to be a licence to overrule all opposition for five years.
A brief nod to Tony Blair who, on coming into office with the largest majoirty Labour had ever seen, involved his predecessor, John Major, in completing the Good Friday Agreement in N Ireland. He also allowed Michael Heseltine to continue to work on the Millennium Dome with which he had been associated. It was an attempt to be inclusive whatever others' political views.
What makes things worse is that the majority is not actually a majority. Parties and MPs are elected by ever-smaller proportions of the voting public often representing a distinct minority of the popular vote.
In the 2015 election the Tories received 60% of the English seats with 41% of the votes; Labour 39% with 32%. So the top two parties received 99% of the English seats with 73% of the popular vote. And we call that democracy? No, it is a legalised duopoly.
Both parties like the present system as it gives them a 'strong' government and squeezes out alternative voices. No one wants dissenting voices do they? The newspapers referred to Theresa May's opponents as saboteurs. This is the language of tyranny. If you are not with us you must be against us and must be eradicated, marginalised, re-educated.
Such tyranny cannot be good for democracy or for our country.
Churchill's famous quote that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others is only the start of the story. He never said that there was only one way of doing democracy.
The tragedy is that there is neither an appetite for change nor a consideration that might be a better way. No party in power is ever going to propose something which might in any way weaken its hold on the reign of power.
This is the first of a series of posts looking at some areas where there is obvious room for improvement in our democratic processes. One day, I hope we have a leader strong enough and 'democratic' enough both to recognise the need and to make changes.
Then we might have a democracy worth defending.
