Monday, July 11, 2005 AD
Let us now question powerful men
Here are Tony Benn's five questions to ask the powerful:
And that last question, in particular - "How do we get rid of you?" - sums up the difference between two distinct conceptions of democracy.
The current Westminster system, particularly the "first past the post" voting system, is often criticised for failing to maintain a sufficiently close correlation between votes cast and seats won. And this is a valid criticism, particularly following an election in which the winning party won 55% of the seats (and a 60+ majority) with only 35% of the votes cast.
Other systems, however, may produce a closer match between votes and seats, and thus appear "fairer" and more "democratic", but then fail that last question from Tony Benn. For example, in the elections for the European Parliament, a "party list" system is used, in which the electorate vote for parties and MEPs are then chosen according to lists drawn up by those parties. How do you get rid of an MEP who is at the top of his or her party's list of candidates? You don't.
This flows through to many of Benn's other questions. After all, where has that MEP got their power from: the electorate, or the party machine? In whose interests will they tend to exercise that power: the electorate, or the party machine? To whom are they truly accountable: the electorate, or the party machine?
This is far from theoretical. Recent elections in the UK have been characterised in part by results in which local electorates revolted against the party system in order to rid themselves of an unpopular MP or candidate, or install a maverick: Tatton in 1997, Kidderminster in 2001, Blaenau Gwent and Bethnal Green & Bow in 2005. British elections are at their best when they retain something of the rough-and-tumble of 18th century street politics. (And it's notable that Benn himself has been an impassioned proponent of the Westminster system, or at least the House of Commons, throughout his career; and an equally vigorous opponent of the EU.)
Contrast this with France, where the new Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, has never had to demean himself by anything so vulgar as submitting himself to the approval of the electorate.
I'm not saying the current Westminster system is perfect. In recent decades it seems to have produced increasingly "morbid" results, partly as the electorate learns to "play the system" through tactical voting. But Benn's questions are a useful reminder that the essence of democracy, in the end, is not an exact mathematical correlation between votes cast and seats won, but the ability to "get the bastards out" without recourse to a revolution.
That's what provides the greatest incentive for those in power to remember where their power comes from, in whose interests they are to exercise it, and to whom they are ultimately accountable.
- What power have you got?
- Where did you get it from?
- In whose interests do you exercise it?
- To whom are you accountable?
- How do we get rid of you?
And that last question, in particular - "How do we get rid of you?" - sums up the difference between two distinct conceptions of democracy.
The current Westminster system, particularly the "first past the post" voting system, is often criticised for failing to maintain a sufficiently close correlation between votes cast and seats won. And this is a valid criticism, particularly following an election in which the winning party won 55% of the seats (and a 60+ majority) with only 35% of the votes cast.
Other systems, however, may produce a closer match between votes and seats, and thus appear "fairer" and more "democratic", but then fail that last question from Tony Benn. For example, in the elections for the European Parliament, a "party list" system is used, in which the electorate vote for parties and MEPs are then chosen according to lists drawn up by those parties. How do you get rid of an MEP who is at the top of his or her party's list of candidates? You don't.
This flows through to many of Benn's other questions. After all, where has that MEP got their power from: the electorate, or the party machine? In whose interests will they tend to exercise that power: the electorate, or the party machine? To whom are they truly accountable: the electorate, or the party machine?
This is far from theoretical. Recent elections in the UK have been characterised in part by results in which local electorates revolted against the party system in order to rid themselves of an unpopular MP or candidate, or install a maverick: Tatton in 1997, Kidderminster in 2001, Blaenau Gwent and Bethnal Green & Bow in 2005. British elections are at their best when they retain something of the rough-and-tumble of 18th century street politics. (And it's notable that Benn himself has been an impassioned proponent of the Westminster system, or at least the House of Commons, throughout his career; and an equally vigorous opponent of the EU.)
Contrast this with France, where the new Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, has never had to demean himself by anything so vulgar as submitting himself to the approval of the electorate.
I'm not saying the current Westminster system is perfect. In recent decades it seems to have produced increasingly "morbid" results, partly as the electorate learns to "play the system" through tactical voting. But Benn's questions are a useful reminder that the essence of democracy, in the end, is not an exact mathematical correlation between votes cast and seats won, but the ability to "get the bastards out" without recourse to a revolution.
That's what provides the greatest incentive for those in power to remember where their power comes from, in whose interests they are to exercise it, and to whom they are ultimately accountable.
