Showing posts with label PR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PR. Show all posts

Thursday, 20 October 2016

DEMOCRACY OR DICTATORSHIP ?

In the Western World, we have what we like to term 'Democracy' and some countries have moved to what can almost be called 'ultimate democracy', with a variety of proportional representation voting systems. We deride all other forms of Government.



At least in the UK we have yet to accept proportional representation for our principal parliament and still have a 'first past the post' system which allows for the election of a relatively strong government most of the time. Nonetheless, many major issues still take months and even years to decide. The recent never-ending debates about the expansion of airport capacity in the South East of the country, the construction of the HS2 rail link, the construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley point and so on, all demonstrate the difficulty which democratic governments have when it comes to making major decisions. The problem is that they have far too many interests to satisfy - their party members, their MPs, their voters, big business, foreign investors, special interest groups and, above all, their own desire to perpetuate their position at the top of the 'power tree'.

In countries which have embraced proportional representation, these problems are magnified. Administrations have to be constructed from several different political groups and the resulting governments are compelled to accept the 'lowest common denominator' when it comes to their policy making, as nothing else can be agreed by the range of interests which share power. Consequently, the western nations are rapidly losing the ability to make quick and strong decisions on matters which are considered 'sensitive'. Possibly the ultimate exhibition of this failure is in the European Union and its utter inability to deal with the consequences of the vast influx of migrants in recent years

In contrast to democracies, dictatorships have no such problems. The Dictator simply needs to satisfy his principal supporters, often the country's military forces, and he or she can then do pretty much whatever they like. If the people don't like it, tough; they don't have a vote so what does it matter ? Some countries which do have voting, such as Russia or Zimbabwe, have systems effectively rigged in such a way as to ensure the desired outcome and that power remains vested in the hands of one leader who is, to all intents and purposes, a dictator. Regardless of the shortcomings of their political systems, such countries are able to make the rapid and forceful decisions denied to democracies.

It has been suggested that the British system is, in effect, an 'elective dictatorship' with power vested in a small number of individuals. While there may be some truth in this, at times when the government has only a small parliamentary majority, it certainly is not; such governments are even more 'in hock' to their coterie of backers than usual. Government is prevented from doing anything to which a sufficient number of its adherents object and this is the problem faced today by Theresa May's administration.

With a majority of only around dozen or so, dissident voices on her own back benches can effectively scupper any measures which they don't like. The re-introduction of grammar schools is one case in point and the issues surrounding the UK's separation from the European Union is another. It is quite clear that the likes of Ken Clarke have every intention of making life extremely difficult for the new Prime Minister, particularly when it comes to the matter of 'Brexit'. They will do everything in their power to prevent the UK from ever really leaving the EU by using every delaying tactic available and voting down anything but the most innocuous of measures.

Mrs May does have one card to play, that of calling a general election, though she could even have difficulty in doing this. She could try to amend the '5 Year Parliament Act' but might find herself defeated by a coalition of opposition parties and her own dissident MPs who would fear that a larger majority would make it easier for her to push forward with what they call a 'hard Brexit'. Such a defeat could be followed by a 'confidence' vote in the government but, this time, opposition and dissidents could ally themselves to keep the government in power, albeit by its slender and vulnerable majority. Conservative MPs would hardly vote against their own party and Labour Members are only too well aware of the danger of going to the polls at this time; it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Mrs May is, therefore, between the proverbial 'rock and hard place'. She can be prevented from doing what the people want purely because of the system of democracy, parties, patronage and vested interests. Now, if we had a dictatorship .......................................................... .












Saturday, 16 May 2015

ELECTION OUTCOME UNFAIR ?

After one of the most astonishing General Elections in memory, the Conservatives have won an absolute majority and can run the country their way, that is, if the Scots don't mind.



The admittedly unwritten British Constitution relies on the notion that the government of the United Kingdom sits at Westminster; any party with an absolute majority, or able to build a workable coalition, makes the rules. Unfortunately, the Scottish Nationalists don't understand this and, despite having their own government in Edinburgh and very significant devolved powers, they seem to believe that they should also take a leading role in the running of the Westminster parliament, including voting on matters which only affect England and Wales. The rhetoric of the likes of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond also makes clear that they intend to create as much disruption as possible in order to encourage agreement to another independence referendum and, they expect, actual independence for Scotland, sooner rather than later. God help the people.



How the Scottish National Party attained their position of apparent influence is, of course, a consequence of the 'first passed the post' voting system. Having gained only 4.7% of the total votes, they've won 56 seats, or 8.6% of the total. Some consider this to be 'unfair', particularly those whose number of seats won was less than their percentage of the total vote, such as the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Greens. Whether or not this is really unfair clearly depends on the viewpoint of the observer and also on what definition one applies to the very vague word 'unfair'. A child will often claim that being refused something they want is 'unfair', while a sports fan may argue that player A has some sort of 'unfair' advantage over player B. In politics, the losers frequently consider it 'unfair' that they didn't win, poor darlings.

The simple facts are that we have the system we have and it's unlikely to be changed in the near future. Neither of the 2 main parties, currently the Conservatives and Labour, are very enthusiastic about changing to proportional representation, the varieties of which are many and confusing, as such systems will tend to work against them. What are existing system does usually produce is majority government and a degree of certainty about the 'direction of travel' for the nation, things which most people, and businesses, prefer over the wishy-washy approach of most coalitions. Long may it continue.