This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/06/suffragettes-rethink-democracy-centenary
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
British democracy is failing. Let's finish the suffragettes' job | |
(about 5 hours later) | |
The centenary of the Representation of the People Act is a good time to push for more accountability, and more representation | |
Contact author | Contact author |
Tue 6 Feb 2018 09.23 GMT | Tue 6 Feb 2018 09.23 GMT |
First published on Tue 6 Feb 2018 09.00 GMT | First published on Tue 6 Feb 2018 09.00 GMT |
Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
Share via Email | Share via Email |
View more sharing options | View more sharing options |
Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
Close | Close |
In 1997, when the economist Amartya Sen was asked what he thought the most important development of the 20th century had been, he chose the establishment of democracy as a “universal value”. | In 1997, when the economist Amartya Sen was asked what he thought the most important development of the 20th century had been, he chose the establishment of democracy as a “universal value”. |
To understand what he meant by this, consider the extraordinary way that our understanding of democracy has changed in a brief century in this country. When the Representation of the People Act was passed – giving some women the vote in the UK – it was not uncommon to talk in terms of whether groups, or even whole countries, were “ready for democracy”. In just a century we have moved from viewing democratic norms and systems not as a goal to which societies should aspire, but the means by which they achieve their aspirations. | To understand what he meant by this, consider the extraordinary way that our understanding of democracy has changed in a brief century in this country. When the Representation of the People Act was passed – giving some women the vote in the UK – it was not uncommon to talk in terms of whether groups, or even whole countries, were “ready for democracy”. In just a century we have moved from viewing democratic norms and systems not as a goal to which societies should aspire, but the means by which they achieve their aspirations. |
Democracy can’t simply be reduced to holding elections and calling it done. A society is more or less democratic depending on many interacting systems and institutions. Whom we vote for, how they are chosen, how our votes are counted, how we can talk and argue about our choices, all these things form part of the democratic system that can either give people control over their lives and a voice in their society, or take that control and voice away. | Democracy can’t simply be reduced to holding elections and calling it done. A society is more or less democratic depending on many interacting systems and institutions. Whom we vote for, how they are chosen, how our votes are counted, how we can talk and argue about our choices, all these things form part of the democratic system that can either give people control over their lives and a voice in their society, or take that control and voice away. |
Despite the achievements of the women who won the right to vote in 1918, there are many who would argue that our electoral system still silences more voices than it amplifies. Among those are the campaign group Make Votes Matter, the cross-party campaign for proportional representation in the House of Commons. They have picked the centenary of the Representation Act for an event they call Hungry for Democracy, where campaigners will be giving up food for 24 hours in an echo of the strategy of hunger striking used by the Suffragettes, to draw attention to the disproportionality of the current system. | Despite the achievements of the women who won the right to vote in 1918, there are many who would argue that our electoral system still silences more voices than it amplifies. Among those are the campaign group Make Votes Matter, the cross-party campaign for proportional representation in the House of Commons. They have picked the centenary of the Representation Act for an event they call Hungry for Democracy, where campaigners will be giving up food for 24 hours in an echo of the strategy of hunger striking used by the Suffragettes, to draw attention to the disproportionality of the current system. |
The event will also be marked with vigils in London and Sheffield. Natalie Bennett, the former leader of the Green party, will be taking part in the Hungry for Democracy North vigil at Sheffield Town Hall – just around the corner from where the first women’s suffrage organisation in the UK was formed in 1851. She points out that in the last election “68% of votes didn’t count”, thanks to a system that rewards winners with 100% of the power, regardless of how marginal their electoral majority is. | The event will also be marked with vigils in London and Sheffield. Natalie Bennett, the former leader of the Green party, will be taking part in the Hungry for Democracy North vigil at Sheffield Town Hall – just around the corner from where the first women’s suffrage organisation in the UK was formed in 1851. She points out that in the last election “68% of votes didn’t count”, thanks to a system that rewards winners with 100% of the power, regardless of how marginal their electoral majority is. |
Stephen Kinnock MP, who will be taking part in the vigil in Parliament Square, told me he thinks it’s “absurd” that the number of MPs doesn’t match up with the number of votes a party gets. In his view, the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system heavily favours a thin sliver of the electorate who live in 100 or so swing constituencies at the expense of everyone else. He believes strongly that “there should be no such thing as a safe seat,” and that all MPs should have to “fight for every vote”. | Stephen Kinnock MP, who will be taking part in the vigil in Parliament Square, told me he thinks it’s “absurd” that the number of MPs doesn’t match up with the number of votes a party gets. In his view, the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system heavily favours a thin sliver of the electorate who live in 100 or so swing constituencies at the expense of everyone else. He believes strongly that “there should be no such thing as a safe seat,” and that all MPs should have to “fight for every vote”. |
He told me that he thinks one of the reasons we have such a “deeply imbalanced economic reality” is because the electoral system incentivises governments to behave in this way to secure re-election. This is in line with Sen, who famously argued that while democratic values such as inclusion and representation are objective goods regardless of outcome, they also work to achieve good outcomes, and mitigate against bad ones. | He told me that he thinks one of the reasons we have such a “deeply imbalanced economic reality” is because the electoral system incentivises governments to behave in this way to secure re-election. This is in line with Sen, who famously argued that while democratic values such as inclusion and representation are objective goods regardless of outcome, they also work to achieve good outcomes, and mitigate against bad ones. |
Klina Jordan, co-founder of Make Votes Matter, says there is empirical research showing that the more representative a democratic system is, the more accountable the government, and the better the outcomes get. Among the advantages are “more egalitarian societies with greater income equality, better long-term planning and political stability, higher voter turnout and satisfaction, and stronger environmental protections”. | Klina Jordan, co-founder of Make Votes Matter, says there is empirical research showing that the more representative a democratic system is, the more accountable the government, and the better the outcomes get. Among the advantages are “more egalitarian societies with greater income equality, better long-term planning and political stability, higher voter turnout and satisfaction, and stronger environmental protections”. |
This is not simply the case on a national level. Many areas in the UK are effectively one-party enclaves, with MPs and local councils being held by one or the other party for decades. This leads both to low turnouts, as people don’t bother voting because they don’t think it will make any difference, and to power structures within which people believe themselves to be beyond accountability. | This is not simply the case on a national level. Many areas in the UK are effectively one-party enclaves, with MPs and local councils being held by one or the other party for decades. This leads both to low turnouts, as people don’t bother voting because they don’t think it will make any difference, and to power structures within which people believe themselves to be beyond accountability. |
In safe seats, the only mechanisms available to effect change are at party level rather than ballot level. Rather than seeing battles within councils as an internal crisis of the party politics, we should be seeing them as a failure of our democratic institutions. And, despite the imbalance of coverage, this is by no means exclusively a Labour party issue: we saw with the Grenfell Tower disaster the costs of a Tory council that views its poor residents as at best an irrelevance and at worst a nuisance, rather than a constituency of voters whose voices and lives matter. | In safe seats, the only mechanisms available to effect change are at party level rather than ballot level. Rather than seeing battles within councils as an internal crisis of the party politics, we should be seeing them as a failure of our democratic institutions. And, despite the imbalance of coverage, this is by no means exclusively a Labour party issue: we saw with the Grenfell Tower disaster the costs of a Tory council that views its poor residents as at best an irrelevance and at worst a nuisance, rather than a constituency of voters whose voices and lives matter. |
We also should not overlook the private sector. For most people the authority with the most direct control over their lives is not the government but their employer. Yet we consider it entirely justifiable for a great leader to run major firms entirely as command economies. There is evidence that greater workplace democracy increases both productivity and employee well-being, as well as the copious evidence from firms such as RBS, Carillion and Enron that dictatorial central control is just as open to abuse and corruption when you’re running a business as it is when you’re running a state. | We also should not overlook the private sector. For most people the authority with the most direct control over their lives is not the government but their employer. Yet we consider it entirely justifiable for a great leader to run major firms entirely as command economies. There is evidence that greater workplace democracy increases both productivity and employee well-being, as well as the copious evidence from firms such as RBS, Carillion and Enron that dictatorial central control is just as open to abuse and corruption when you’re running a business as it is when you’re running a state. |
Yet there is no challenge to the cult of the CEO, no matter how many of them are found to be committing acts of vandalism against their own companies and leaving them as worthless husks that government has to step in to salvage. The push for outsourcing in government can be seen in this respect as an attempt to minimise the level of control that individual workers have over their workplaces, to reduce every employee down to a function rather than a person. | Yet there is no challenge to the cult of the CEO, no matter how many of them are found to be committing acts of vandalism against their own companies and leaving them as worthless husks that government has to step in to salvage. The push for outsourcing in government can be seen in this respect as an attempt to minimise the level of control that individual workers have over their workplaces, to reduce every employee down to a function rather than a person. |
A friend of mine once described the UK as “the world leader in legacy problems”. We were often either the first or among the first to adopt systems, and as a result can find ourselves trying to implement 21st-century ways of working with institutions built for the 17th century. We hamstring ourselves by resting too much on our history, holding too tightly to things because they’re ours rather than because they’re good. Change for change’s sake is not the answer, but we need to be testing and examining our democracy. What are the outcomes that we want to see? Do our current democratic institutions achieve or hinder those outcomes? And if they do not do what we want, how can we change them so they do? | A friend of mine once described the UK as “the world leader in legacy problems”. We were often either the first or among the first to adopt systems, and as a result can find ourselves trying to implement 21st-century ways of working with institutions built for the 17th century. We hamstring ourselves by resting too much on our history, holding too tightly to things because they’re ours rather than because they’re good. Change for change’s sake is not the answer, but we need to be testing and examining our democracy. What are the outcomes that we want to see? Do our current democratic institutions achieve or hinder those outcomes? And if they do not do what we want, how can we change them so they do? |
Kinnock says that campaigners for women’s suffrage were “looking for a system that gave a voice to everyone”, and that 100 years later we’re still not there. It’s time to consider whether the best way to honour their legacy is not simply to celebrate their achievements a century ago but to push forward with our own reforms and bring our democratic systems into the 21st century. | Kinnock says that campaigners for women’s suffrage were “looking for a system that gave a voice to everyone”, and that 100 years later we’re still not there. It’s time to consider whether the best way to honour their legacy is not simply to celebrate their achievements a century ago but to push forward with our own reforms and bring our democratic systems into the 21st century. |
• Phil McDuff is a freelance writer | • Phil McDuff is a freelance writer |
Electoral reform | Electoral reform |
Opinion | Opinion |
Proportional representation | Proportional representation |
Feminism | Feminism |
Women | Women |
comment | comment |
Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
Share via Email | Share via Email |
Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
Reuse this content | Reuse this content |