Democracy needs to be reinvigorated

May 21 2008 Agenda

This is an abridged version of the Annual Denis Howell Address, hosted by the Birmingham Centre for Business Ethics, given by Edgbaston MP Gisela Stuart.

--------------

We take democracy for granted, but it's not the norm across the world.

Maybe because I was born in Germany I am more conscious of how precious democracy is than the average Brit, who has known nothing else.

Some countries - like those in Eastern Europe, have had functioning governments in the past. The challenge was to help them re-establish the democratic institutions. But in others, where there is no civic society, no political parties, and no traditions of the rule of law or property rights - it is a much more difficult job.

China is clearly going to be an increasingly important economic power, but some commentators seem to assume that economic changes in China will inevitably lead to a more democratic system. I hope they are right, but it seems to be a peculiarly Marxist-determinist view of development.

Elsewhere the picture is even gloomier, with dictators hanging on despite wrecking their economies.

I have just returned from a visit with the Foreign Affairs Committee to Japan and Korea. Japan and South Korea are successful democracies, but North Korea is one of the few remaining totalitarian dictatorships.

But the long standing democracies of the West need reinvigorating too.

In Britain, trust in politicians and political institutions is low and so far the response by our political leaders to this has been inadequate.

Democracy depends on the consent of the people. But at the last election the Government was only elected by about 25 per cent of the eligible electorate.

The turnout in the Ladywood Ward at the last election was 16.7 per cent - only one in six voted.

Now it could be that a low turnout reflects contentment, but I don't think that is the case.

If people think it matters they will vote. My guess is that if there had been a referendum on the EU Constitution or the Euro there would have been a very high turnout indeed.

The London mayoral elections provide a useful lesson. In 2000 the turnout was 34.4 per cent. This rose to 37 per cent in 2004 and in 2008 it was 45 per cent - people knew that there would be a tangible outcome and there was a good contest.

Incidentally I still firmly support the idea of an elected mayor for Birmingham too.

The response to low turnout has been to make voting easier. This is a mistake.

It should not be difficult to vote, but how much effort does it take to go down to the local school and put a cross on a ballot paper?

Of course some people should be allowed to vote by post, the infirm and sick, but we have made postal voting too easy, encouraging corruption and further discrediting a system once regarded as the envy of the world, and not just by chauvinistic Brits.

I still think that polling day should be a distinct event in time and space. Voting is important and there is something significant about going to the polling station - making your cross on the piece of paper - and putting it in the ballot box.

The level of turnout is a good thermometer, telling us something about the health of the system. We need to deal with the illness rather than trying to fiddle the reading.

Politics is an honourable occupation. "For Brutus was an honourable man, so are they all; all honourable men".

Impugning the motives of politicians is as old as time.

I think it important to understand the nature of politics and political skills. Compromise, bargaining and dissembling are part and parcel of getting things done. It is not always a pretty sight. Some of the greatest politicians have been masters of it - Roosevelt, Churchill and Lloyd George, as well as some of the worst. I'd better not name them as some may still be alive!

There are bad apples in every walk of life and there have always been rogues in politics, perhaps Horatio Bottomley being the most infamous. Even William Pitt would not pass muster today!

As in other walks of life standards have changed - practices that were part and parcel of a day's activity 40 years ago would end in jail today.

In my view politics is probably cleaner that it ever was, but behaviour is scrutinised by the media and press in a way that was not the case for many years. In part this is simply a matter of quantity - 24/7 news coverage and so on, but it is also a matter of tone.

In general I think this confrontational press reflects a confrontational political culture that on the whole is better than the suffocating consensus and timidity that has often characterised the press in continental Europe.

However, two things in particular have changed which have affected the way politicians are seen.

First, as the behaviour or politicians has come under more and more scrutiny, more and more rules of behaviour have been set. This has meant that so long as MPs abide by the rules, that are themselves often open to interpretation, probity is satisfied. However, this is not really good enough - for example, it can never be right to claim for things that have not actually been purchased. There is right and wrong behaviour, whatever the rules say.

Secondly, there has been the growth of the so-called "professional politician". This too is a problem because it reduces the experience that is brought to Parliament and it further cuts off politicians from the voters.

Some of this is generational. The generation of politicians who fought in the war as young men, the Healeys, Heaths and Whitelaws, brought experiences and judgments that made them better politicians.

I think this is linked to another issue: the huge increase in the payroll vote - or "place-men" as they were known in earlier times. The creation of non salaried ministerial posts, increasing numbers of unpaid parliamentary aides, and paid Select Committee Chairs and the Speaker's Panel - these are all forms of patronage.

Of course Parliament requires parties to function, but today the broadly loyal, yet independently minded Members and perhaps more importantly the MP prepared to speak openly, is an endangered species.

There was never a golden age of parliamentary debate free from whips and arm twisting, but the executive has again become too powerful.

I believe the vast majority of MPs do the job because we want to make the world a better place. Most of us start of by saying "things don't have to be the way they are - and we want to change them".

But there needs to be institutional changes if they are to play their proper part within our parliamentary system.

And this does not mean building up huge staffs of advisers and the like. In fact I suspect if MPs were paid more money and no additional expenses and had to fund all their activities there would be a remarkable and swift decline in the employment of researchers and other staff.

Nonetheless, being an effective MP does require money.

Being an MP means that we have to employ staff, send out letters, travel from our constituency to Westminster and necessarily live in two places.

The Commons need reforming with half the number of Members - we have more than whole of the US Congress - who are then paid a large salary and they pay out of it all research, and so on.