If I Ruled the World: My Idea for Power2010
Posted Under: Democracy,Elections,GreenFeed
The Third Estate is brought to you today by the letters DEMOCRACY and the number 2010. In just one month the Power2010 campaign has received over 2000 ideas to reform our political system. To highlight their launch, I invited Guy Aitchison to set out the campaign’s stall in a piece that was met with mixed reactions, and some head banging from Dave Semple who has just written a detailed rebuttal of the campaign’s approach, alongside a picture of Wolfie Smith praying for the glorious day. Last week, Guy returned the favour by tagging me in his new meme to encourage bloggers to post their own suggestions for Power2010. I would have responded to it sooner had I not been writing up my interview with Nick Clegg who, amongst the usual policy platitudes, said: “One of the great things about Power2010 is that it’s asking for your ideas, from people well beyond the bubble at Westminster. I’m really looking forward to reading what people come up with after November 30th. Politicians don’t know it all, and we have to ask people directly if we’re to know what they want.” That’s how big it’s got.
Do I think Power2010 is the answer to the millions of British people who are rightly disenfranchised with a broken political system? I don’t know. But then, I didn’t really think we were going to stop the war either and I gave that my best shot too. So here goes, my grand plan come that glorious day!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall
The Lords have got to go. Almost a century has passed since the Parliament Act and we still have an unelected upper house. No serious approach to democratic reform can begin without addressing the Lords.
What do we want? Democracy! When do we want it? Erm. Now!
The crucial stumbling block for leaders trying to reconnect people with politics is the first-past-the-post method, which essentially leads to a system based on voters choosing the major party they dislike the least. When, as in the last decade, the difference between the two main parties appears to have evaporated faster than Gordon Brown’s popularity, people begin to believe that their vote won’t make a difference. That’s why they stay at home. That’s why Nick Griffin ends up on Question Time. The answer to both problems is, quite simply, to introduce proportional representation. Not only will it ensure that people can vote for who they want to run the country, rather than just voting against who they don’t want to run the country, but it will turn the House of Commons from a tricolour into a rainbow, giving people a genuine choice and reconnecting politics with ideology.
Please sir, I want some more lollipop ladies outside my school
The biggest potential drawback to proportional representation is that it might remove one of the most popular elements of British democracy: the local MP who hears the concerns of their constituents, represents them to Parliament and faces losing their seat if they fail to do so. This is where the Lords come in. I propose an upper house composed of constituency politicians directly elected by the alternative vote system to sit alongside a lower house that proportionately represents the wider passions of the people. All neatly tied up? I think so. Why am I not Prime Minister yet?
For some strange reason I can’t quite fathom, other people have different (some might even say better) ideas for democratic reform. So I’d like to tag a few of them. Some may be sympathetic to Power2010’s aims and objectives. Others may prefer to bang their heads. It’s their choice. That’s democracy.
Phil BC – A Very Public Sociologist
Derek Wall – Another Green World
Carl Packman – Raincoat Optimism
Reader Comments
Nice one Salman. You may want to take a look at this open letter Power2010 is sending to the party leaders saying the Kelly review alone isn’t enough to re-build trust in politics:
http://www.power2010.org.uk/page/s/notenough
We’re urging as many people as possible to co-sign it to try and get the message out and prevent democratic reform once again being swept under the carpet…
I’d say I was sympathetic to Power2010, its way of operating appeals, if by change to democracy means more representation, and more participation. I reserve these sentiments to my social-democratic alter-ego. And if we want DEMOCRACY NOW!, or at least a social democracy now, these are the measures we have to prepare (at this stage I wondered what it was I had said to be included in the list above, is it *how* I perceive democracy, or how I suggest we *achieve* democracy, more of which I will now detail).
I use the terms social-democratic alter-ego seriously, as apprehension of a possible disagreement with Dave Semple, who’d spent some time debating me on his comments thread re: Jon Cruddas. The possible disagreement does not emenate from that debate, but it has gone some way into informing it, namely the nature of transition. I don’t believe we have any major disagreements on how we approach the Labour party, I imagine that we are both socialists with entryist tendencies. I’m sure that any differences we have on the end product, or rather the End, is not enough to warrant a particularly huge falling out at this stage. But as to whether he sees social democracy as a benefit to the transition phase may be the point of departure.
I feel that every Marxist should have a social-democratic alter-ego for the purposes of the transition phase, for I take a stand at the quasi-Leninist position of inequality and capitalism being the impetus needed for social revolution. Having said this, Lenin himself should not be held accountable (even if the legend is untrue that he ever posited such a thing. As an aside, I take very seriously this notion that the concept needn’t have a concrete referent in order to exist, for example, God, whether such a thing exists or not, has an affect on the doings of the world, even if this takes the form of an unshaking christian legacy), for the pursuits of late capitalist protest have engendered what I mean. Allow me to explain what I mean.
Take for example Naomi Klein’s book No Logo, Nick Cohen repeats in his book What’s Left that even Hollywood is anti-capitalist in the sense that it promotes Klein, Moore, Pilger and all the other half-arsed stuff. But anyone with a little bit of sense can see the problem here. When Starbucks for example went fair trade, raised wages, took it upon themselves to address workers rights this was a victory for Klein, this was a victory for the no logoers.
But it was not necessarily a victory for socialism, as time spent in socialist groups in universities, who spend much time sticking boycott coca cola stickers to drinks machines, will seem to contradict. We seem to have only succeeded in making capitalism better, we now more Soros’, Turners’ and Gates’. This has not changed the logic of capital itself, and as much as this hurts to say, starbucks do not decide the logic of capital, so to choose to be antagonistic towards them, or Cocoa cola, or macdonalds, only seems to contribute to the logic of capital, which is not damaged by using recyclable cups, going fair trade, paying its workers a quid more.
Where this looks like a criticism of certain brands, it’s not. My point here is this, our social-democratic alter-ego should allow for these shifts in ethics, for better conditions are better than worse conditions. And if you, like me, are convinced that the logic of capital is abhorrent, you will not be phased by the efforts to change democracy from within the parameters we have.
I argued elsewhere that revolution cannot exist in the capitalist framework, the socialistic end of history cannot exist where capitalism is the international economic hegemon, thus proving my anti-Stalinist tendencies, so the framework must be changed. This is a long-term project. So to want democracy now, must entail that alter-ego, a temporary transitional phase. But to view your End as a no logoer, that is detrimental to the project, and capitalism is the only benefactor, because lets not forget the main scope of the capitalist project, to nip in the bud ones pursuit of change, if the logic of capital detects a change that doesn’t assault the existing logic of capital, consider the job done. Consider the green revolution, fair trade, even to some extent unionisation. These don’t end capitalism, they demand that capitalism allow for it. And my social-democratic alter-ego likes green, likes fair trade, likes unions, but my Marxism constantly reminds me that these are transitional phases, not Ends.
If you’ve got this far, apologies, this had no structure and was all written inside the small text box so I couldn’t properly check for paragraphing and so on. Plus its my lunch-hour, so I’m not fussed, but I am hungry.
My conclusion is power2010 might be good for ideas, pariticpation methods, and for this I am happy to agree and follow its development. But until the logic of capital is challenged, power will be concentrated to and determined by capitalism.
Sorry I should probably have explained. Guy’s idea was to start a meme whereby bloggers tag each other to blog their own Power2010 suggestion on their blogs. I’m not sure if all the people I tagged are sympathetic to the campaign’s aims, I just tagged some of the blogs I like, but if you want to blog a suggestion Carl, that would be great.
oh I see, I will blog an entry soon with my suggestion for the social-democratic alter-ego, viewing participationist democracy as a transitional phase of halting and outdoing the logic of capital.
Salman
You’ve been kind enough to visit TCF at all hours, so though i should return the compliment at a sensible time of day, ensuring that I fill in my email properly and thereby avoid losing hundreds of words.
As you know, I think the whole PR thing is relatively irrelevant though fairly harmless cobblers, so that need not detain us (though a quick refresh on your view about how far right nasties might or might not exploit PR, and whether you think that’s just part of the price, or whatever, would be handy.
What I am please about though is that you recognise the importance of local representation on e.g. lollipop ladies (or in my case in Lancashire just recently, multi-million quid investment in FE facilities successfullt retained in spite of astonishing bureaucratic incompetence by the LSC, or lobbying hard for the first ever railway station in a new town, that kind of thing).
That’s all I have to say – just to appreciate that you (perhaps unlike others on the PR crusade) recognise th importance to political participation of identifiable (in terms of place) politicians. I’m not against PR per se, but this bit does get left out of the equation, and the relative incomprehensibilty of some of th Welsh system goes unrecognised, for example). What intrigues me most is those commentators who are well into directly elected mayors for ‘visibilty’ and ‘accountablity’ reasons but are also unthinkingly into PR simply because it is in vogue.
Right – are you going to accord me a ‘we’re all comrades together really’ guest post to set out my Power 2010 competition entry focused on intra-party change using legislation to enforce it and MP expenses scandals as the key public driver to push through what I’ll be trying to push in the Labour party anyway? It’s already written.
Ah, I’ve read your clarification to Carl now. I’m supposed to do it at my own site. Ok. I’ll try and get Comrade Semple to agree…….
Paul, the original idea was to create a meme. However, I would be very happy, and in fact would very much like, to carry a guest piece by you setting out your ideas, and your disagreements with Power2010. If you’re interested in writing it let me know and I’ll put it up for you. We are all comrades together really. I refuse to believe otherwise.
Quick refresh on whether I believe far right gains are part of the price, which I’ve also written on TCF – I’m half Asian and a socialist. If the far right come to power, I’m first against the wall. They need to be fought with every last breath in every way possible. In communities, in hearts and minds, on councils, in the debating chamber, on the streets if necessary. But not by restricting democracy. As Caroline Lucas told me:
“If the BNP started winning seats under first-past-the post, would we suspend democracy to stop them getting elected? Of course not. I deplore their racism, ignorance and lies. However, I believe the best way to challenge them is to address the factors which drive individuals to vote for far right parties. If we treat the disease, the symptoms will go away.”
Hi Sal
Just out of interest why will the (new) Lords be the house with the ‘local’ representatives – most other bicameral systems have constituency representatives in the lower house. Ie House of Representatives and Senate in the States, the same in Australia,
Because I think it’s important to have the house with the strongest national legislative powers being fully elected by proportional representation. If it were done the other way round, it would just be a sop to democratic reform with very little real impact. Indeed, as I’m sure you learned in your politics paper, many of the democratic systems around the world that emerged in past centuries were designed specifically to be sops to the people without giving away too much power.