Today, I wish to raise the issues of what individuals are supposed to do if they believe that government in western democracies: a) place too much emphasis on centralised government and b) that there are too many advisers and administrators working for them.
Briefly conceive if you will, of a system not unlike that of the UK and I believe you will see how local government provides priceless advantages over central government. There are around 600 representatives for the population of 60, 000, 000. How much interaction do these people have with their elected representatives? I would suggest not very much and this lack of contact is bad for the electorate. Consider how the Victorians valued civic pride and how government really did take place on a local level in so many ways during that period. Town halls or similar structures were the centres of debates about local policies regarding planning permission, social policy etc. Consider how civic structures such as those in Leeds, Manchester and Staines were built with generous donations from the inhabitants of the locale – now imagine something like that happening today and it is much harder because with a lack of regular contact with inhabitants and local law makers initiatives such as these fall by the wayside. In the past representatives often lived close to their electorate so their interests were similar. Administrators assisted of course, but the system was prevented from becoming too flabby and inefficient because ultimately local people were able to see inside the machine and assess how well it was doing its job.
Central government today is extremely expensive. Consider for a moment the parliament at Westminster. This year, Mps alone have put in a collective expenses bill of £86 million! You can bet that the European Union Parliament (who has even less contact with the electorate than Westminster does) has similar expense levels too. And here is the reason why these representatives will keep smiling – you can’t change the governmental system without them doing so – and how many Mps do you suppose will change a system which allows such a high quality of life with so little comeback, not many! And if you wish to start a party which promises to take less money for government you will stand very little chance of being elected because you will be competing against an advertising/advisory panel funded with millions of pounds. Such is this wonderful thing we call western style democracy. Personally, I feel it is only one stage removed from a dictatorship.
Instead, I propose a considerable alteration to the hierarchy of power. Place more powers in the hands of local government. The more important issues, such as national security, foreign policy etc, should remain centralised, but the remit of central government must be kept as low as possible. Essentially for every level you move up the chain of power, the number of issues they control should decrease. Representatives of central government might should also face a double election to ensure they are really popular. In this system, MPs in a central parliament are elected to office only when the local electorate and local councillors agree on a suitable candidate.
Do you think Westminster would like you to join in my way of thinking – no minister!
6 comments:
Although I wish it would!
I also believe in increasing the separation of powers. There should not just be a delegation – or devolution as it is sometimes referred to in Britain – of powers, but an enforced federal structure in place, as in Canada or the United States. The central government should perform only those tasks necessary for the entire country to act as a whole: it simply is not possible for a group of people in London to really feel responsible to the rest of the 60 million individuals in Britain, due to the "Monkeysphere" effect. However, I don't like the idea of local councils vetting candidates for Parliament: the electorate are the only body that should be entrusted with this responsibility, and frequently the same group of electors may not favour the same party for the two different legislative tiers. That said, perhaps the Upper House could be elected by local authorities if we do ever get around to removing the appointment system and effectively ending the House of Lords as we know it today; which I'm not convinced of the necessity for, myself.
How do you think this could be brought about? Obviously a parliamentary majority would be needed, but how to get one in favour of giving away so much authority?
The best way would be to form pressure groups - or just one pressure group. Thinking about our English parliamentary history for a moment, we may recall the Great Reform Bill of 1832 and the Repel of the Corn Laws of 1846. The Reform Bill, was unusual because it was one of the few times in history where a majority have voted to reduce their power. It might be added, however, that the alternative was to face the House of Lords being infiltrated with a majority of members who wished to bring about the reform anyway.
In the case of the Corn Laws 1846, various groups were established who communicated with each other regularly: they held meetings, used the new postal system, wrote newspaper articles and funded MPs who supported the abolition of the Corn Laws. Consequently, their desires eventually prevailed.
Therefore, if one wished to alter our parliament, the way to do it would be to form groups who act together to present legislators with "an offer they can't refuse".
I agree. Actually, aren't the two factions you speak of the same ones that were to later form the Liberal Party? I'm sure the whole point of political parties is that they are movements that seek something in particular: like the 19th century Liberals, who wanted loosening of Government; the Republicans in the U.S., who sought the abolition of slavery; and the Kuomintang in China, who wanted to get rid of the Emperor (and the Europeans, as well). Therefore, I think we need a new political party as well, because the major parties we have in Britain don't each have an issue like those to get the electorate and the MPs behind them.
New parties may be helpful, equally we may find that the existing system can be adapted to meet the demands which we make of it.
Concerning the formation of the 19th century Liberal party I would agree that the Great Reform Bill and the Repeal of the Corn Laws paid decisive roles in its formation. However, I would say that it is important to remember that: a.) what the mid 19th century politicians understood by party was something much looser than that which we understand by it and; b.) other forces were also very important in the formation of the liberal party including the old whig faction in parliament, disaffection with the conservatives before Disraeli's electoral win and
the personal legacy of Gladstone. I think the lack of popular support for the Conservatives and the power of Gladstone were more important that the Great Reform Bill and probably the Repel of the Corn Laws too.
What I will observe though, is that the problem of organising a state is not really a political issue, but rather a religious one. By religious, I mean the word in a broad sense, not to mean a believer in a certain God; but rather the beliefs which people hold about the fundamental questions of life such as: whether it is right to look after other people, the limits of tolerance, when it is right to use force etc.
Sort out the religion and the politics will fall in line with it; leave the religion and you can expect far more problems along the way.
Post a Comment