Policies not Politicians
Or.. How I lay in bed burning with righteous indignation at the world
The impact of the Scottish ‘No’ vote cannot be underestimated. With a turnout of 84.6%, interest in politics was high and it’s having repercussions across the UK. And late at night it got me thinking..
Democracy really is the worst form of government except all the others.
It’s terrible that I have to lump all my political ideas into one vote, for one person, for one party and then cling to blind hope that they will not only deliver on the key issue that you voted for them for, but that they won’t also decide to do something crazy in the following 4 years.
But I do have opinions and I want them to count. I currently have strong opinions about the NHS (funnily enough) – I want it free at point of access and publicly owned. As previously written, I want the end of marketisation, and the abolition of the purchaser-provider split. I want minimum safe staffing levels, producing a happy, motivated workforce supported by a national infrastructure including (but not limited to) a national competency database for staff development, a national, secure, electronic patient record system and support for innovation and technology development at both local and national levels.
Large parts of the medical community are clamouring for the same. Who do we turn to, to achieve this? The Conservatives seem hell bent on the exact opposite. I’m not even going to bother discussing UKIP or the BNP’s “policies”. The Lib Dems are currently the toxic product of broken and failed promises and can’t be trusted to do anything. Labour promise some of these things but don’t have the spine to go far enough, they’re scared of losing the vote of the political ‘middle’. And actually won’t shared budgets just mean Social Care money gets eaten away? The Green party have some very progressive policies, but do they have the political clout to make them happen? And more’s the point, though I hate tactical voting, do they stand any chance of electing any MPs? (YES and here’s why)
But wait I also have strong views about the Law, the Environment, Education, Immigration, the question of Europe, the Housing crisis, reducing the Deficit, Employment, Minimum wage… do any of the parties offer me different solutions at all?
The list goes on. Why must I choose one party, one MP, one PM, to represent me on all these issues?! That one person is forced to shout and scream for anyone to listen to them, and naturally the person with the best rhetoric, the best publicity and the support of the media will win.
Asimov’s quote illustrates the problem we face. Why are power-hungry, rich, white, public-school, middle-class public speakers making our policy decisions based on their ideological viewpoint, rather than proposing ideologies, and letting experts in that field decide on policy?
As Sam Freedman, a former political adviser to Michael Gove, told a room full of teachers at a conference last week: “politicians are required to make big announcements. Fail to do so, and your speech will be reported as dull, or not reported at all. As a general election approaches, when newspaper inches equal free advertising, not making news is unacceptable”
Our political system operates on the false idea that those with the most charisma are suited to rule.
I don’t want to vote for a personality.
I want to vote for policies.
I propose a new system of voting. One where laws are made by the voice of the people.
For example, experts in each industry form a committee. They use an evidence based approach to deciding how to get things done for their sector, for instance just like NICE guidelines are produced. Where necessary, research is commissioned. Civil servants get it done. Where absolutely needed, where arguments are intractable, or where ideological strategy needs to be decided, policy is decided by popular vote. Technology is our ally here. Voting can be online, on your smart phone, via email. Polling stations could be available for those without internet – or it could be done at cash machines/banks.
Obviously there are inherent issues here. Who votes these committee members into office, and more pointedly, how do we remove them from office? How do we ensure fairness of appointment and representation of breadth of opinion? How do we make sure we don’t ‘over-ask’ the public and lose their interest? How do we make sure minorities get their voices heard? How do we make sure the public engages with decisions and doesn’t vote carelessly?
Its been said that people aren’t fit to rule themselves.. but unless we start to ask them, how will we know?
Well some of these answers are closer to us than we think. Switzerland operates a form of government called direct democracy. It maximises direct participation in governing. It has formalised opinion polls and frequent referendums.
Switzerland is made up of 26 soverign states with complete control of their domains, except on laws specifically mentioned in the constitution to be under Federal control, and it has a lengthy document to prove it.
The constitution may only be changed if an overall majority of the electorate agrees in a referendum and if the electorate of a majority of the cantons (federal states) agrees, too.
Law-Making
- First draft prepared by federal administrators
- Draft presented to the public in a formal poll — governments, political parties and NGOs are able to suggest amendments
- The bill passes through their two political chambers
- Finally the electorate has a veto-right on laws. With sufficient signatures on a form (in their case 50,000 — 1.2% of their population) a referendum must be held within 3 months. In this case, only a majority is necessary to pass.
In Switzerland, having 12 referendums a year — one a month! — is not unusual. Additionally, if 100,000 citizens sign a form, they can demand a discussion of a proposal in parliament, and a referendum.
I was at a summer BBQ on a rooftop in Brixton, prodding the coals and talking to a new acquaintance called Luke. He’s from Switzerland, and as we chatted his phone buzzed. It was an email, from the government, asking him to vote in a referendum. In front of my eyes, he duly logged into the online system and voted. At a BBQ in another country.
As my hero Douglas Adams once noted, there are many problems with government, and who you get to do it. Or who gets people to let them do it. “To summarise: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I want direct democracy.
I want to vote for Policies not People, and I see in direct democracy a way to reduce the effect of the individual in politics, with all their changeable opinions and ideologies, and reassure Asimov’s worries — that intellectualism will prevail over policy, not rhetoric. That the public is heard over individual issues, and able to take action, instead of relying on an advocate who may or may not choose to respond.
I see in this system the possibility a way for disenfranchised voters, the 68.7% of UK voters who didn’t vote in the last local elections, the same ones who may have been rioting on our streets in 2011, the same ones who almost achieved a Scottish succession, to be actively and fruitfully involved in law-making, as the have achieved in Switzerland.
PS — Find out more here and here (views not necessarily endorsed).
PPS — Who are the only party offering anything close to this at the moment? Oh god do I have to vote UKIP to get direct democracy? (joke)
