Another reform that has been on the table for decades, and still only partially enacted, relates to the role of the House of Lords. Both these houses would have significant responsibilities and powers to influence and modify government decisions, with terms of reference that would need to be carefully worked out to reflect their importance, and with responsibilities ranging from making amendments to outright veto power.
This is the most difficult and contentious area for change, but I believe strongly that the motivations and behaviour of political parties themselves lie at the heart of the malaise in our system of governance.
While in previous centuries such behaviours grew out of a desire to represent particular interests — classically capital and labour — they now compete to run a complex state divided by many interests that are impossible to encapsulate in any one party. So, politics has become a football match between and within different teams competing for power — essentially a game in which victory often goes to the team that appears least worst to a public that are often already cynical about politics.
And many take it as normal that the business of government is organised to keep the party of government in power, rather than necessarily to make the best decisions for the country. We cannot abolish political parties, but it should be possible to limit them by giving greater opportunities and support for alternative and independent candidates for election; by giving elected representatives the responsibility for electing the executive — the prime minister and the senior ministers of state — via some kind of electoral college, and by limiting the power of party whips to force elected members to vote in a particular way.
In this way, electors could elect the local representatives who best represent their interests. Apart perhaps from the final proposal above — an electoral college of representatives who choose the prime minister and senior cabinet members — none of these recommendations are unfamiliar.
In fact most of them have been put forward at one time or another over recent decades. So, I am calling for comprehensive reform rather than revolution. The fact that these reforms have not happened points to the inertia of our political system and the entrenched positions of those who benefit from it.
But leaving aside the barriers to implementing these reforms, what are the downsides? One argument would be that an executive elected by parliamentary representatives would not necessarily make a coherent team. Is it not more likely to respond to the evidence presented by their selected advisors, rather than a broader base of evidence collated by a peer-reviewed advisory commission? Even more pertinently, our history shows that executive government is characterised by rivalry, division and conflict, as much as unity or coherence.
A more general criticism is that this system would be too bureaucratic, bogged down in policy reviews and scrutiny, mired in the machinations of advisors and the debates of scientific experts. But the record of the last few decades in the UK — and the USA — suggests that the choice of strong, charismatic leaders such as Thatcher, Trump and Johnson has created or exacerbated divisions in society, divisions which highlight inequality and conflict. It may be old-fashioned, but my argument here is that this kind of popular voting may be fine for sport, entertainment, and celebrity culture, but not for the political leadership of a complex Western democracy.
In this paper I am arguing for a model of democracy that makes far better use of the knowledge, skills and understanding we have over vast areas of economic, social and environmental issues. This evidence is ignored too frequently in our political culture, for the tribal reasons I have outlined.
By strengthening the link between policy and evidence, and strengthening the link between voter and politicians , I believe that we could make much better decisions for the good of our society. That is part of the scientific learning approach that has served us well in medicine, technology and many other fields of endeavour. These are radical proposals, and in the UK we do not have a strong tradition of radical reform.
Organic change, disjointed incrementalism — muddling through — is more the order of the day. But my argument is that muddling through is no longer adequate.
Deep divisions in our society by ethnicity, generation and wealth, recently coming to the fore with public protests against police behaviour and the toppling of emblems of imperialism, disaffection with existing politicians, and above all the apparent susceptibility of many in the population to populist rhetoric, all seriously threaten the effective running of elected democracy. Essentially my thesis is that representative democracy in the UK and across the West is still stronger and fairer than the alternatives — but only if it is radically strengthened and improved by the kinds of measures I have set out.
Otherwise I fear that it could be overtaken by its alternative models, with demagogues attaining power through charismatic populist appeals to the people, or even with the emergence of totalitarian regimes like in China, that embrace capitalism to deliver the goods to the people but that stamp out personal freedoms.
I believe that by radically reforming representative democracy we can deliver outcomes that would be much fairer and more effective than many of the tribal, prejudiced, and populist decisions made today under cover of a complacent and cynical acceptance of the current distorted conditions of democracy.
And in a period of sustained social, economic and environmental turbulence, we desperately need a political system that delivers fairer and more effective policies and decisions, and that brings people together rather than dividing them.
But it has not been transparent in explaining exactly how it has done so. Advisors advise and politicians decide. But politicians must show how or why they have interpreted advice in the way that they have. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and performance in thirty six countries.
Such appointments are arguably best understood as rewards or as stepping stones for members of the political family. Press enter to search. Can we make democracy work? Trevor Cherrett. Five ways to rehabilitate representative democracy My starting point is that Churchill was fundamentally right: democracy is the foundation for the fairest and least damaging form of politics, but that it can and should be radically improved — even rehabilitated — to properly address the challenges it faces.
These problems deserve more detailed explanation [2] but for the purposes of this brief discussion I would summarise them as follows: Political decisions are rarely based on the best evidence or science — that is, the best surveys, analysis, and lessons learnt from previous experiences. Justifying policies and decisions on the basis of firm evidence I believe we need to strengthen the evidence—based advisory role of the current civil service and local government officials through more coherent and transparent channels of information and analysis.
Make elections fairer FPTP is manifestly not truly representative. Abolish and replace the House of Lords Another reform that has been on the table for decades, and still only partially enacted, relates to the role of the House of Lords. Limit the powers of political Parties This is the most difficult and contentious area for change, but I believe strongly that the motivations and behaviour of political parties themselves lie at the heart of the malaise in our system of governance.
What could possibly go wrong? Towards a better democratic model In this paper I am arguing for a model of democracy that makes far better use of the knowledge, skills and understanding we have over vast areas of economic, social and environmental issues.
His career spans work in local and central government, academia, and the independent sector in the UK and abroad. He is author of many articles and publications on rural housing, community development and planning. More from Policy Network. Britain and Europe. One crucial implication of Making Democracy Work is that feeble and corrupt government, operating against the background of a weak and uncivic society, tends not to foster the creation of wealth, but rather to renew poverty.
Overmighty government may stifle economic initiative. But enfeebled government and unrepresentative government kills it, or diverts it into corruption and criminality. This may not, perhaps, be a universal truth; but it is directly relevant to the prospects of democracy in the United States today.
Due to global supply chain issues, book orders are currently taking days or longer to be delivered. Please order early for the holidays or consider shopping at your local bookstore. Making Democracy Work Robert D. Putnam , Robert Leonardi , and Raffaella Y. Overview Author s Praise 4.
Stay connected for the latest books and special offers.
0コメント