Situation Clarification F

I spoke previously about the setting up of a political party to advance these aims, but I see this as an interim measure, if it comes about. Party politics and the system of which it is a part is part of the problem in a deeper sense.

It’s very illuminating to think about the Westminster system in the light of when it was formulated. Back in the 18^th century, when it started to become what it is now, only a small number of people had the vote, or would be considered eligible to ‘represent’ an area. And of course, largely they were ‘representing’ the interests of key people. General conditions for all people were way down in the mix, if they were considered at all, except by a few reformers. So it was in effect a closed system, maintaining smooth running because all concerned were to some extent part of the same club. Those involved were separated into broad groups, known as parties, who fought with each other for dominance of the agenda. Established within this were almost theatrical mutual conventions, which made the whole enterprise somewhat game-like, a condition which was exacerbated by the predilections and assumptions of those involved.

Of course, where we are now societally is phenomenally different to where we were then. But we have maintained this old system. Now, pretty well everyone has the vote, and our norms have moved on to the point where we at least pay lip service to the notion that everyone needs to be considered. But we still have ‘representatives’ arranged into parties. Inevitably, given this concentration of power into a few hands, and the weight of the history of a so-called virtuous system, there is no obstruction to corruption except personal ethics. And we all know how easily, if we want something enough which comes within reach, a wilful bending of our ethics can occur in order to justify our going after it, despite any negative consequences for others.

The separation of any proposition made to the nation into ‘bad’ and ‘good’, according to party politics, is obviously a poor analysis. We shouldn’t be negotiating any issue like this i.e. only after negotiating the childlike waves in the my side/your side paddling pool. That’s just a waste of everyone’s time and resources.

We should, I feel, think about what ‘representation’ means. At the moment, it’s used as an excuse. “Well, speak to your MP, that’s what they’re there for”. Even though that MP is obliged to follow a party line. Even though that MP may completely disagree with what you’re saying and not be willing to represent that view. Of course it’s also used as an excuse at concept level – “we have a system whereby the people are represented – get out and vote!” as though that really means we have a hotline to the corridors of power, and that a once-every-four-years single decision is somehow “being involved”, “being taken into consideration” at an appropriate level.

Again, a likening helps. In any other sphere, if one was after fullest communication between a large group and a central administration via ‘representatives’, then those ‘representatives’ would consistently need to poll the group to find out what they need to bring to the central table: it would be frowned upon simply to assume that yourself and people like you already had the position. Doing that, one would be regarded as egotistic and dismissive, and deciding the affair before the event, effectively by-passing the process of ‘representation’ in its essence.

So, we probably need some sort of consultative democracy to replace the current system. In parliament, official parties would be need to be banned, though I’m equally sure that, humans being humans, there may well be a strong temptation to form alliances. Each representative (genuine ones, no quotemarks needed) would need to be quite simply a reporter of their constituents’ views. This represents perhaps a more significant change than might be suspected – ‘representation’ becomes literally that, you are a functionary, not a personality. This of course brings up a key point: “but what about what comes out, healthily, in the rough and tumble of argument about a topic?” This is important. I think, though, it needs to occur before the populace are consulted by their representatives. So the arguing through is done not by the representatives, but by those with expert knowledge in any given field. The representatives after all are not in a position to have this expert knowledge. And yet, in our current system, they’re imbued with some sort of magic status which allows them to take on that part. Experts should do expert stuff, representatives should represent, it’s that simple – lodge decision-making practicalities where they naturally live. In this sense, Westminster is ‘unnatural’, and that is why the results are not great.

This posits a different function for Westminster. I don’t particularly see the need for the functionaries who would be called “representatives” to be there. The ones who need to be invited there are those with the skills to represent the different sides of any argument – parliament becomes the forum, effectively. The audience would be those with skills similar to those making the main arguments, and then a leavening of general members of the public, called perhaps by some system akin to jury duty. These ordinary people would be there to do the job of clarification for all, so that things don’t just get pushed through without being clear to the unexpert. And to make sure that the experts aren’t running some assumptions that the general public can see won’t work.

So, to sum up in reference to the first paragraph, any political party created to get these changes happening would have to have its own demise built in. There to get the job done, then goodbye.