By giving the population a token vote on who sits in parliament every 5 years, the ruling class have placated the British people, and conned them into thinking we have ‘achieved democracy’. But democracy isn’t something you either have or you don’t, it’s an ideal that is to be worked towards indefinitely. It is an aim, a utopia, a destination that we can get closer to, but can never be reached entirely.
In the UK we have a parliamentary democracy. Every five years- or every two years recently- we get to vote for MPs who represent our area in parliament. The system is extremely flawed, with the ruling party rarely exceeding 40% of the vote, but gaining 100% of the government, due to our first-past-the-post system. How do we improve democracy?
Switzerland prides itself on its ‘direct democracy’, a system whereby referendums are held frequently, with votes happening at all levels of government. Indeed, citizens are able to propose changes to the constitution, or ask for referendums to be held on any new or existing law at the level of national, state-wide, or local government. But does more voting equal more democracy? It’s true that this constant engagement of its citizens gives the governments, in essence, a permanently updated mandate for the decisions they undertake, which is arguably more democratic than a purely representative democracy, as happens in most of Europe. But democracy over legislators is only one piece of the puzzle. The argument for democratic oversight from the population over politicians is justified by the logic that the decisions taken by these people affect everyone under their jurisdiction. This is undoubtedly true, but why does it have to end here?
If we’re basing the need for democracy on the idea that the decisions of the few affect the lives of the many, then we could also apply that logic to a whole range of other institutions besides government. The decisions taken by one landlord will affect the lives of all their tenants. The decisions taken by one employer will affect the lives of all their employees. Where is the democracy here? A landlord who decides to raise your rent will probably make more of a difference to your life than most bills that pass through the commons. A boss who decides to cut hours will make more of a difference to the lives of all their workers than a decision by their city council ever will.
Now, you could argue we only need a vote on our government because it is the government's job to represent our interests not just as citizens, but as workers and tenants too. This sounds good on paper, but reality is often disappointing. The fear of the ‘nanny state’ that pervades our culture means government oversight of landlords and employers is often portrayed as suspect, insidious, and meddling. The notion of the ‘small state’ being the best option has been popular in Britain for many decades, and this deeply held suspicion of the government, while no doubt justified, means our politicians are loath to get involved in issues seen as ‘outside their jurisdiction’, and instead leave business and capital the room they demand. If we are to follow this model going forward, which it looks like we are, then our democratic oversight is strictly limited to what our MPs feel comfortable getting involved in.
If politicians don't want to use their democratic mandate to affect the things that affect people's lives the most- rent and wages- then democracy is failing to deliver. Free-marketeers may squeal at the idea of a company’s workers having a say over things like acquisitions, mergers, investments, and cut-backs. But seeing as the workers are most affected by these company decisions, why shouldn’t they have a say? Why should the lives of the many be dictated by the decisions of the few? Landlords may convulse at the prospect of their tenants having a say over the terms of their living situation, but I ask again: why the hell shouldn't they?
Комментарии