To discuss democracy in light of the UK Coalition’s proposed new law on the replacement of MPs by their constituents, rather than Bashar al-Assad’s and Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s ‘democratic’ victories in Syria and Egypt, seems to put a very small cart before a very large horse. Nevertheless, the immense disaffection in the west with the available politics and politicians has now apparently surfaced in Egypt, while Syrians, ‘encouraged’ by armed occupation (but without attractive alternatives) voted, in large numbers, for the devil they know. These fake elections represent a turning point in the ‘Arab Spring’ as the counter-revolution gathers force. The new leadership in Egypt has been bought and paid for by the US. Assad is not the west’s first choice by any means, but the Syrian, Iranian alliance appears strong enough to defend itself both from its own internal revolts and the machinations of the west. The ‘democracy’ of the Egyptian and Syrian elections has little to tell us about democracy as such, and much more about global realignments and the growing weakness of the west after defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 2008 economic collapse.
In Britain however, according to some, democracy is making a faltering advance with the new proposal to ‘recall’ MPs. In the event we are told that a parliamentary committee will first decide which particular MPs should be available for 10% of their constituents to bring back to a new election. This safeguard is to prevent ‘populist’ and ‘special interest’ initiatives getting a grip on the process.
The Recall bill may be a non-event although at least it allows the rest of us to see that the political class feels under pressure. But there is more to unravel here. What is the meaning of our democracy implied by the new bill? And in the now decades long detachment of the oppressed and excluded layers of our society from the political system, what alternatives does it suggest?
We have a representative democracy in the west – apparently. But the content of this term had been progressively scooped out and refilled with a calculated alternative. What did representative mean and what does it mean now? When the Labour Party was set up they aimed to get working class men into Parliament – because the working class was not represented there. A representative was someone who shared the key characteristics of those who voted for them; something of their life experiences; their income and conditions; their place in society – and by that means these people would know the interests of their voters. Now a representative, according to the Encarta world English dictionary, means 1. Somebody who votes or speaks on behalf of others. 2. A member of a legislative assembly.
What has shifted? What has changed is that apparently anyone might ‘represent’ me. Indeed they may represent me by expressing their own opinions that might be quite contrary to my own. I voted for their party and my MP can apparently still represent me while in no way sharing my experience or by fighting for my views and beliefs. My representative speaks for me. The accent is normally given to the third word in that sentence but to understand what is happening it should rest on the fourth.
More acutely in the case of the Labour Party we are encouraged to vote for our ‘representatives’ because they are not like us. Candidates are selected by parties on the basis of their success in the institutions of our society. They have been to top schools, universities, are successful in their professions or in business, or, increasingly, in the political bureaucracies. They seek the vote of those who are none of those things ... in order to ‘represent’ them, to speak for them (to substitute for them.)
At the same time a vast bureaucratic state machine tied in innumerable ways to those who pull the economic levers in society manages all of our lives. This, the most powerful aspect of government, represents nobody but itself. It turns out that the civil service leaders, the tops of industry and finance that all these people, are from the same backgrounds as those who we are allowed to vote for. So, what sits at the very centre of our democracy is a corporate, collective, consensual class and its apparatus that makes everything tick. These people are not young, they are not female, not BME, not poor, not insecure, not disabled, not dependent, not wage earners, not single parents, do not live in estates, do not use public transport, are not looking for a house or a flat or a room to stay in. And a few hundred of them out of the many thousands, are elected – their particular aim is to publicly support the consensus.
A democracy gives rule to the majority over the minority. Like the word ‘representative’ that has been hollowed out and refilled with its opposite, so democracy now means the exact opposite of majority rule. It is, as far as can be managed by our movers and shakers, as close to a guarantee that they can get, that the majority will not rule. The minority will rule.
Nothing is static. Great wars and revolutions in the last century created a state in Britain immediately after WW2, which had to balance the ferocious energy and climactic achievements of the working classes here and abroad with the need to maintain capitalism. Great inroads into capital’s power were achieved. The state did not change its ultimate class character. Its semi-permanent leaders in the great ministries and their networks in the forces and the economy assured that. But the elected component of the state was able, at least partially, to ‘represent’ the mass of the working class and express, at least partially, its interests. Industries were nationalised. The NHS was born. Colonies’ battles for independence were recognised. Full employment was guaranteed and rationing did continue. This was the first and last time the working class in the UK found any expression in the British parliament, or among British mainstream political parties – as a bi-product of its successful participation in a momentous and world changing struggle. It turns out that Parliamentary democracy – at least for the majority in Britain – has not been a success. About the best that could be said for it was that it is more susceptible to pressure than most of its alternatives. After the experience of fascism we are not neutral on that point.
What would a truly representative democracy look like? Or rather what has it looked like? The great movements for emancipation over the last 150 years have given us some basic ideas. In the first place, as the old suffragette slogan has it
‘None so fit to break the chains as those who wear them!’
The representatives of the majority should be from the majority. All parts of the majority. And because they are representing the majority they should be paid the average wage of the majority. Political representation should never be a career move. Second; the decisions of the representatives need to be carried out by the representatives. The representatives need to lead on the changes they call for. They need to set up the plan, organise the work and mobilise and consult those involved, employ the experts. And yes, third, if they cannot do it, or if they go in the wrong direction, they should be recalled, immediately, by those who voted for them.
To imagine such a state of affairs is easy. To drive towards it will quickly encounter the furious opposition of the minority who live off the status quo and that will be very difficult indeed. It would need a revolution! The sooner we get started the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment