 |
 |
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
In a distant galaxy a long time ago, as a thirteen year old in Edinburgh I stood in a mock election as the Liberal Party candidate. I wasn't quite sure what their policies were, but they had six seats in a parliament of over six hundred and I've always been sympathetic to the underdog. So I wrote to party headquarters and got some posters to pin up around school, but still came fourth, behind the Scottish Nationalists. As I grew older, I realised Liberals were in favour of the Common Market (that dates me...), a Scottish Parliament and proportional representation - about which more anon - all of which appealed to various niches in my pysche. In later years the solid commitment to gay rights was a bonus. So I voted Liberal most of the time, even after they merged with the Social Democrats and compromised their name. And when Paddy Ashdown, the last Lib Dem leader, defined the difference between the three main British parties as "The Conservatives believe that money can set you free, the Labour party believe that the state can set you free. We believe that only you can set you free," I thought "hm, I can go with that." But like many men, I was unfaithful. I voted Green from time to time, and even once stood as a Green Party candidate in the local elections. Scottish Nationalists are thin on the ground in East London, but I came nowhere near winning, although I did beat the British National Party. I was a natural Green, being a firm believer then, as now, that taking more out of the planet than you put in is the quick route to ecological bankruptcy. Yet at times I still voted Liberal Democrat. Yes, the Greens had integrity while the Lib Dems compromised by working within the system. But the latter at least appeared competent and mostly honest, while the level of naivete and incompetence at Green Party meetings were enough to make grown men cry (old cliche, but it's late at night...). So for a while I went back to voting Lib Dem. Of their best-known policies, I harboured doubts about further European integration, but I was still a big fan of proportional representation - the idea that if you get 20% of the votes, you should get 20% of the representation. It's too radical and democratic an idea for countries such as the UK and US, where we regularly give power to parties and presidents for less than half the votes of the people who actually go to the polls, but it seemed fairly effective in places like Ireland and the Netherlands where middle of the road governments actually represent the majority of voters. Then a few weeks ago Le Pen came second in the first round of the French Presidential election and shortly afterwards Fortuyn's List came second in the Dutch national elections. I know the French system is only a nod and a wink towards proportional representation, but the Dutch version is pretty close to perfect PR. Le Pen is definitely a nasty character, while what little I know of Fortuyn suggests a more complex approach than mindless xenophobia. Nonetheless, the idea that proportional representation can give so much power to the extremes in society gave me pause for thought. If neither first-past-the-post nor proportional representation can produce responsible governments, what's the alternative? In that pause, an idea came back to me that I first heard years ago on "Stop the Week", a no-longer-heard-talkfest on BBC Radio 4. Forget democracy, was the proposition. It only gives you politicians like Bush and Berlusconi. Not to mention Blair, although he is in quite a different league. Essentially, democracy is less government by the people than government by egoists. After all, you don't get to be prime minister or president because you are the most capable person for the job. You get elected head of government because you have manipulated the system better than your rivals - think J F Kennedy in the 1960 election, George and Jeb Bush in 2000 and the manouevrings of AJC Blair and his chums following the death of his predecessor John Smith. And once you're in government, your hands are tied by the need to stay in government, by the inability to plan more than four or five years ahead and by the need to respect the interests of the people who put you there, whether the oil industry in the United States or cardrivers in the UK. You try and push the economy or the legislation a little in this direction or in that but you don't get far and, as I said, if you don't push in the direction your paymasters want, you soon lose power. So what's the alternative? Well, the obvious answer is to universally acclaim me as world dictator, but my diary for the next few years is too full, so we should look elsewhere. No-one else, except perhaps the Dalai Lama, would be capable of benign dictatorship and I suspect he wouldn't want the job either. Meritocracy - rule by the people who are actually capable of governing the country would be ideal - except deciding who was actually capable is basically democracy under another name. No, the real solution is government by jury. Keep the constituencies, districts and ridings, or whatever you call your local unit of representation. Keep everyone on the electoral register, only call it a representation register and make it a crime punishable with lifelong imprisonment not to register when you reach your twenty-fifth birthday - or possibly thirty, to ensure a modicum of maturity. Then every four years in every constituency chose by lot a member of parliament (house representative / whatever) to represent the seat for eight years. Two people for every seat, overlapping by four years. Pay them a standard salary - say twice the national average and no compensation for those who had previously earned more. Tell them to choose one of their number as head of government and allow him / her to choose a cabinet that is open to civilians but which parliament has to approve. In other words, a national assembly of men and women who are truly disinterested, who, because they represent no party, represent everyone. Who include, no doubt, fools and fanatics, but presumably in no greater numbers than the current congress or parliament. Who are free to decide what is good for the nation rather than good for the party. Who can think long-term, because they are not bound by the need for re-election. We already entrust our justice system to the jury method. It has its faults but the principle is sound. And common sense tells us that those who are not emotionally involved in an issue are more likely to recommend a sane course of action. (To repeat the example above, congressmen dependent on the oil lobby and motor industry are not going to vote in favour of effective public transport initiatives.) Of course there would be drawbacks and difficulties. The complexities of legislation, often hoisted on us by international commitments, can easily tire the brain. There is a danger of too much power falling into the hands of civil servants. Capital punishment might become popular again and the sexual practices of a minority subject to censure. But I suspect that the average MP chosen by chance is likely to take her / his responsibilities seriously, and perhaps we can work into the system a grace period whereby new members are obliged to study the legislative process for a year - how it works and why - before being allowed to vote. Okay, I've thrown out the idea. It's up to others to play around with it, think about the consequences a little more, tweak it into shape. But don't reject it out of hand. Churchill may have said that democracy was the worst form of government except all the others, but I bet he hadn't thought of the jury system. And because something was inconceivable in the 1950s doesn't mean it isn't conceivable now - no-one then would have predicted the Web, string theory or Jerry Springer, and all three of them haunt us now. So nothing, not even the jury system of government, is impossible. Start spreading the word; today a column in a backwater of the internet, tomorrow an idea that takes over the world!!! 31 May 2002 Find the competition... win a prize |
| 31 May 2002 |
 |
|
© Martin Foreman |