h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here in the UK we have a system of parliamentary democracy that is centuries old. Conceived in an age when most people never moved more than a few miles from their home town in their lifetimes, it is a way for the ordinary man to have his views represented at the heart of government.

Except it isn't any more.

MP's vote the way their party whips tell them to. Parties make promises with no intention of keeping them. Ministers blatantly lie and are not held to account. Corruption runs through every vein of Westminster. Money buys influence and geegaws. Centrist parties manipulate information and the news to silence or demonise opponents. Major decisions are made which affect everyone without meaningful discussion.

Is it time to take a serious look at government: the role of government and whether the current system is actually democratic?

Is it possible that technology could make government more representative? Could Westminster be replaced by a PC?

Firstly, I don't think that the picture you paint is entirely true. I think that (most of) those in power truly believe in what they are doing and that few are corrupt.

Despite this, I agree with the general idea of your post. I think that whatever we have now, it isn't true democracy as originally conceived.

I do think that true democracy is unworkable. As soon as there becomes some sort of competition to get into power, there is a problem. As as the competition is an intrinsic part of the democratic process, I think the system is ultimately flawed.

I have no idea what could replace it, however.

===

"Could Westminster be replaced by a PC?"

Only with complete, non biased information given to each and every voter, who must take it upon himself to read, understand, and make a decision about the issue in hand.

I expect we shall have our AI overlords gone mad in time.

Vip makes a good point. The control of information is essential. Despite the touching faith in the integrity of our MPs, even if they are given a free vote, if they are given false information the result is pre-judged. WMD anyone?

Democracy is really too important to allow politicians any say in it.

Even the sci-fi option of a computer is limited to the information fed in.

I read in a fantasy book about a form of government which intrigued me. I always wonder how it could be adapted to work in our society.

Anyone who wanted to be in government was automatically excluded from the election. When someone was nominated by his peers, they were placed under armed guard to stop them running off. If they were elected to the government, any family money, property and assets were sold off and placed in the government coffers, any expenses required were taken from these funds. There was a standard 5 year term of office, no extensions and no early retirements allowed.

If the people were happy with the government and it made a profit, a share of the profits were given at the end of the term. If the public were not happy or there was a loss, the person was executed at the end.

It kept the government fairly honest, they listened to the public and it was in their best interests to make the country prosper.

Could it work?

SWL,

I think that our form of government is democratic, but that democracy isn't everything we think it is. I like to think of it in historical terms as an improvement on what came before. It stops the worst abuses of power associated to monarchy / dictatorship / etc. What it doesn't do is guarantee a truly representative government (whatever that might mean), or a good government (likewise). Is there something better? Maybe. I hope so.

I don't think that we can rely on technology coming to our aid, but it might conceivably help. Having lots of mini-referenda using e-voting definitely wouldn't help, agenda setting problems would crop up very quickly. But, technology helps us to communicate better and more efficiently, which might make a huge difference.

My view of the next step in improving our form of government is something like participatory democracy. If you don't know about it already, you might be interested in looking up the Porto Allegre 'Participatory Budget'. Also interesting is Stephen Shalom's 'Participatory Polity' (sometimes abbreviated parpolity). I think they all require people to be more politically involved than people are today though. I'm not sure it's possible to do much better than our current system if people aren't interested in getting involved. We could maybe alleviate some of the worse problems like the excessive personal power of the prime minister, the false politics of a two party system and the influence that can be bought with party funding, but I'm not sure if these changes would make a huge difference. After all, other countries have better systems from this point of view and don't do all that much better.

Vip,

I suspect that rather a lot of them are corrupt actually, but probably not the majority. Not totally corrupt as in, they'd do anything for money, but that they're quite willing to have their mind easily changed if it'll get them ahead. More insidious, but probably just as bad.

Deakie,

I think the basic idea - not exactly the same - goes back to Plato "The Republic". Douglas Adams uses the idea too, but of course he takes it one stage further, the ruler of the universe isn't even aware that he is the ruler of the universe.

Vip: >I do think that true democracy is unworkable.<

If I'm not mistaken, Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have ever been tried. Clever chap, Churchill.

SWL: >Could Westminster be replaced by a PC?<

I'm planning to keep a low profile in this conversation, inasmuch as my knowledge of British democracy is even poorer than my knowledge of US domocracy. Nevertheless, I'll be interested to follow the discussion. If you decide that Westminster can be replaced by a PC, then maybe we could borrow the PC to use over here, possibly with a few minor modifications to account for different time zones and such?

Dr Dogster, I bow to your superior knowledge of Plato but I see the same themes there. The idea came from a David Eddings novel, an author who is well known for taking bits he likes from current and past government and theology and incorporating it in his fantasy books. Gives you a darned good yarn though!

Plato did study an amazing amount of different constitutions before writing the 'The Republic'. Perhaps we should be listening more to the voices of experience?

There isn't a single framework for democracy or other means of rule, which itself wouldn't have problems and not work, and at the end of the day the biggest problem with Democracy asides those who gain power only to misuse or who turn out not to have the abilitys to use power, is t the fact that everyone* in society has an equal say and equal power in terms of their one vote... Heck thats the most frightening thought all those horrid idiots bigited morons who actually have the right to vote... thankfully of course most of them don't bother No idea what could work better than what we have... lest we decide that democracy is correct and right as a default at its basic level, and allow every issue to be voted for by each and every person in the country... Great we'd end up with those kind of folk who k not only watch reality TV but who actually vote for people on reality TV probably being the biggest part of the voting percentages

Maybe we've got the principle right but have allowed people to abuse it and move the whole structure away from what was intended.

Do we need a clearer seperation of politics and law?
Should we police politicians more effectively?
Should we demand a higher moral standard from MPs than for society in general?

Morning all,

Maybe, and it is I admit a BIG maybe, a form of PR could improve our present system. It cannot be good when the party receiving the least support at a General election, can become the Govt. , with the implied ability to drag it's own MP'sthrough the lobbies, when perhaps all their instincts ( MP's that is) are telling them that those who voted them into their seat want an opposite decision...

I understand that a strong and decisive government is preferable to one hamstrung by factions and groupings of smaller parties. But how else can we ensure that the public's "real" voice is listened to?

Novo

Have to agree Novo, that PR is the sensible move from a FPP system. PR is not perfect, but people do end up feeling like they have more say in what governments do.

Another benefit is that it slows down the rate at which legislation can get passed. The big economic (read soul destroying) changes in NZ of the 80s and 90s happened under first past the post govts who had a monopoly of power. That doesn't exist now, and the govt has to negotiate with other parties on various bits of legislation. The whole process takes longer, and is much more public. People have the chance to have input if they want to etc.

I think the PR=instability thing is a red herring. What's happened here is that a few times the big business lot have sent out scarey messages about instability around election time when it looked like we would have too socialist a govt, but in reality it was more about spin because bb would lose its control of the economy (which of course it didn't, as the major centrist parties still run the country).

It's also a myth that big parties are hamstrung by small parties. People vote in small parties precisely because they want big parties to be held accountable. And that's what happens. For the most part agreements between parties are reached shortly after an election so it's not like there are major negotiations every time a decision has to be reached. But big parties who are in govt can't assume that they will be able to railroad in whatever they like, like they can under FPP.

Hi Kea,

Glad it is working so well for you. Here in the UK the big parties tend to belittle PR as a system, and always point out the 'inherent flaws' in PR. They don't want it of course!.

Could you tell us which PR sytem is in use with you? I believe thare are several ways in which it can be done.

Novo

And for the ininitiated, could someone please spell out your meaning by "PR" and "FPP"? Thanks.

We're not, strictly speaking, a democracy. We're a parliamentary constitutional monarchy which is a de facto republican political system with de jure monarchal baubles. "Democracy" in the modern world is used as a euphamism for various republican or de facto republican systems from the Presidential federal republicanism of the United States to the parliamentary system popular in Europe.

The system we have isn't perfect but it's the best one that has ever really existed. When serious errors appear they tend to be confronted and repaired albeit sometimes slowly (how long has it taken to reform the house of lords).

The idea that the "centre" controls the press, as someone suggested is ludicrious. It's almost impossible to control the press in the UK which is why the newspapers can be so arrogant. The British press also represents a wide range of views.

If we had PR (proportional representation), where do you stick the BNP MP? They've never (at least I can't remember one) got close to having a parliamentary MP, but under PR isn't there a danger that enough people would vote for them to entitle them to have a representative?

How does a PR system link MPs to constituencies - or doesn't it?

When I would normally write to my local MP over something, who would I write to instead?

If enough people vote for them they should have a representative. Idiots need representation too.

Yes, but do they get a constituency, and if so where? If enough people vote for them nationally that they are entitled to an MP, where does that MP represent? BNP tend to get more votes in ethnically-diverse areas where there is already a lot of conflict(think some of the areas around Bradford). Lets say that they do manage to get an MP - do they 'represent' the area where theygot most votes? Is it then just hard cheese for the majority of people in that area the *didn't* vote for them?

I just don't understand if PR links MPs to areas in the same way that the current (first past the post) system does.

"I think the PR=instability thing is a red herring"

Except it isn't. PR is far more representative and removes the stumbling block of the "wasted vote" but it allows for a much larger range of parties in a parliament or senate which tends to mean governments need coalitions to rule. Coalitions, by their very nature, can be unstable and collapse or change at each election. PR is the main reason Italy goes through so many governments and prime ministers.

"And for the ininitiated, could someone please spell out your meaning by "PR" and "FPP"? Thanks."

PR = Proportional representation. Votes are totalled up and seats are allocated to partys according to percentages of votes.

FPP = First past the post. Candidates stand in constituencies and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat.