PIP

Towards democracy?

For the people of Britain to advance their social and economic condition, maintain acceptable levels of security and ensure a social stability upon which future generations can build a better future, it is essential that all of the opportunities to support such an evolution be assessed and the best options selected.

Naturally, the decisions we take as a nation need to accord with the preferences of the majority whilst safeguarding the interests of those who hold minority viewpoints. That a majority should forever impose its view on those who hold other viewpoints, especially when such viewpoints do not harm the rest of society, is not the way that future security and stability can be sustained.

The people of Britain consider themselves to be citizens of a democracy and some consider our political party system to be an essential component of a healthy democracy. It would seem that few have stopped to consider what we mean by democracy and therefore the impact of the political party system on democracy is seldom raised as an issue because most of the dialogue in the field of politics is dominated by spokesmen from poltiical parties.

The British electorate is roughly 45 million people from a total population of 61.4 million. In other words some 73% of the population have the vote with the remainder being below the voting age or being unregistered.

How significant are political parties?

The popularity of political parties has declined significantly since the 1960s. Today all of the political parties together cannot muster a total membership of more than 300,000 people, the equivalent of just 5 constituencies, or less that 1% of the electorate. Therefore these political party conventions, where policies are laid out and decided upon, involve a tiny, almost inexpressive minority of enthusiasts. The problem with this eccentric process is that those who are members of policial parties cannot hope to represent the comprehensive viewpoints of the British electorate. In fact they do not pretend to even attempt to do this but rather convince themselves that, based upon a severely limited intellectual critical mass, they have the ability to come up with "solutions" to Britain's "problems". Again, it has to be asked how such a tiny number of people can assume that they understand the issues facing a far greater number and frankly, how they have the arrogance to then set out to convince the remaining 99.75% of the electorate that they have the policy solutions for everyone.

The whole truth is not apparent...

The outcome of the intellectual efforts of the British political parties, which constitute no more than tiny factions, are a collection of specific proposals. If we consider there to be three main political parties (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats) then the electorate is offered at any election three distinct options, and often less distinct options, on areas of policy-making considered to be important by each party. On any specific issue there will be no more than three options on offer, not because these are the best options assessed from the standpoint of the preferences of the whole population¹ but rather what are considered to be best by less than 1% of the electorate. Under such corcumstances, the likelihood that any one party will come up with an option which reflects the weighted opinion of the electorate is close to zero. Taking into account the diversity of the conditions and outlook of the population, a population of individuals, it is plain that a British General Election is not a serious process of selecting the best policy options but rather it resembles a parlour game where people are offered three lists of policy options, all of which are highly likely not to agree with people's preferences. As a result the British electorate is required to vote on the least bad combination of policies. On this basis the political party gaining "most votes" will gain about 20% of the electorate's direct support. With the first past the post electoral system the new governing party, which received no support from 80% of the electorate, gains an absolute majority in Parliament and this effectively neuters any opposition.

The whole concept of Parliamentary debate and a vote of an assembly reflecting the will of the people is a figment of the imagination. Under the current circumstances of a world with increasingly complex challenges this is not a particularly enlightened way of developing policies nor of electing people considered to be competent to take decisions in the name of the people of the country. The stark lack of representation of the people and the banality of the policy development process involving a non-representative faction made up of a fraction of party members, is hardly a process worthy of support.