A quasi-democracy?
Civitas, 20 May 2009
The European Parliament is the only directly elected EU institution, but MEPs are not directly elected.
In the UK, EU elections use a ‘Closed List System’ – brought in by Labour in 1999 – whereby UK political parties assemble a list of candidates before the election, with their preferred prospective MEPs at the top. On Election Day (4th June) the people will vote for the national parties and then the UK’s 72 EP seats will be divided between the parties according to their proportion of the overall vote. Each Party’s seats will be allocated to candidates in the order that they appear on the list.
Whilst a Home Office review in 2000 concluded that “the introduction of this system appeared not to affect voter motivation”, the ‘Closed List System’ does damage democracy:
Firstly, the ‘Closed List system’ undermines democratic accountability. As a result of the National Parties’ tight-grip on the allocaton of their seats, there is no direct electoral link between voters and individual MEPs, so that people cannot refuse to re-elect individual MEPs that inadequately represent their interests.
Secondly, EU elections do not spark genuine debate on the EU because Euro election campaigns are largely fought on national issues. This will be particularly true for the 2009 Euro election in the UK because the next General Election in Britain is not more than 18 months away. The proximity to the next General Election could encourage voters to “send a clear message” to politicians via a protest vote and as a result, the EU election will be widely interpreted as a by-election for the forthcoming General election. If Party leaders view the Euro elections simply as a hurdle on the path to Downing Street, policy lines will be merged.
For example, David Cameron is exporting the current MPs’ expenses row to win Euro-votes in June. Hedging his bets that the public outrage at Westminster expenses abuses will extend to anger at the Brussels gravy train, Cameron has pledged to “deep clean” Conservative MEPs expenses by forcing all Tory MEP candidates to sign an “ethical pledge” promising transparency on their expenses. All Conservative MEPs will sign a 5 point “right to know” expenses form documenting any relatives they employ and details of any salaries paid from public funds (all staff bonuses will be limited to 15% of their annual salary). Tory MEPs will also have to publish a twice-yearly account of their expenses and travel allowances and details of any meetings they have with lobbyists and pressure groups. However, they will not need to produce receipts for all of their expenditure.
Will tightening party discipline really ingratiate prospective MEPs to the voters? An alternative could be to reform the electoral system for Euro elections to reinforce the democratic link between the people and their elected representatives. Politicians must be held to account by the people, which requires that MEPs election depends on the people, rather than their party. The ‘closed list system’ mocks any attempt to argue that direct elections to the European Parliament give people a say on the EU. At very best the EU election in the UK is a quasi-democracy, which does not empower UK voters.
Well said Mr Joseph! – direct democracy is – one hopes – the means by which we will see governments work in future. When compared with the technology and innovation and choices offered seen in other areas of modern life, the service provided by the present parliament plays out like some bad medieval play: full of lurching plotters, circus incompetence and ludicrous rituals.
My own preference would be to see policy areas broadly divided up (e.g. health, education, law, social reform, energy, telecoms and media etc) and for parties or consortia to propose plans into each area. People could vote in consortia that represented their perspectives. Some issues would provide regional policies, others national. Although this sounds complex – IT systems today would make this a doddle – it is less complex than a customer database used by a mid sized firm! Moreover, despite the conspiracy theorists – it is far less susceptible to corruption than ever before given it is humans and not systems that lie at the root of rigged voting. (Surely, better a system to further democracy than state control (i.e. ID cards) if you have an odd few billion lying about!)
Under Labour, the present political system is now really a bit silly. Am I alone, I wonder, in finding the MPs expense “scandal” of late the least of politicians’ scandal’s? It is rather the representation of only their own ideology, and the refusal to represent their electorate, which is the larger politician scandal today. One element of this corruption is the mass transfer of tax revenues from the UK to Europe, without the electorate knowing the full costs, let alone having a say.
In 1970 I Stood independently in the UK general election as a “consult the people” candidate promoting the Swiss system of direct democracy for the UK.I received around 3000 votes instead of the usual derisory two or three hundred(more I think than any other independent candidate) and subsequently stood three times for the Liberal party who at least proposed electoral reform.
Most people prefer to vote on issues that affect them rather than decide between people they don’t know and possibly don’t even like .That is why referendums are so much the best way forward at local,national,and even inernational level providing a sufficient number of signaures can be found to demand an optional (blocking) referendum to stop unpopular measures or an initiative to promote new legislation.
One objection is that the question can be rigged but that cannot apply if the question is simply to approve or disapprove with a yes or no vote the blocking of an existing proposal or the introduction of a new one.
A second objection is that referendums have been used by dictators to confirm their regimes in power.The Swiss model I suggest supports only a referendum emenating from a petition signed by thousands of citizens not something from the existing government;
A third objection is that important questions cannot be reduced to simple yes or no answers. That however is exactly what happens when our MPs vote in parliament so there would only be an extension of existing procedure not a radical change;
Lastly a fourth objection is that ordinary people cannot follow the debate or understand complex issues.In fact however most of our MPs do not listen or take part in debate and as television has revealed, apart from question time most MPs do not listen to debate (average attendance of 12 out of around 650 !) ,They just vote along party lines after the debate is over By walking like automatons through a choice of two door marked yea or no.In any case time and again the collective wisdom of around 20 million possible voters has shown itself superior to the decisions of 650 self serving politicians !Fanatics of right and left and ignoramuses tend to cancel each other out so the correct decision is nearly always reached in the end.
The moral and practical case for Direct Democracy is in my opinion unanswerable but politicians of all parties are naturally reluctant to leave the gravy train and the trappings of power; so for those of you who agree with me on the need for democratic reform I can only say “Don’t hold your breath !”