Slow Democracy

Democracy: rule by the people. We in western countries are proud of our democracies and dismissive of the alternatives, whether they are the authoritarian one-party systems of China and Russia, southern-hemisphere dictatorships or middle-eastern despots. From here in Britain it is difficult to argue that any of the alternatives are better than our democracy, though it is equally difficult to see things through the eyes of a member of China's new middle class whose parents scraped a living from the soil or a Russian reading about NATO military exercises in the Baltic or the Black Sea.

So, democracy is the right way to go, but are we doing it right? There are no rules saying democracy has to be two or three political parties fighting it out to get the most votes in elections every four or five years. And rule by the people is no more than putting a cross in a box in the hope that things might improve, followed by disappointment when the other lot fail to deliver on their promises. In olden days, if drawing a cross proved inadequate in effecting change, there was little alternative to rebellion, and there have been lots of those. Now we have the internet, email, Twitter, Wikileaks, blogs, online petitions, YouGov, dozens of activist organisations like Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion and the rest, mass protests against war in Iraq, deporting migrants and asylum seekers, fracking and new coal mines and gas fields. There are so many ways the man or woman in the street can express their views, but none of these seem to have much effect. All that matters to the government - the people with the power - is which boxes the crosses will go in at the next election. And when we are deciding which box, we invariably opt for the party whose promises, if fulfilled, would (we fondly imagine) benefit us personally and whose ethos conflicts the least with our own beliefs. Whether that party's candidate in our area is the best on the ballot paper and which of the candidates' views and aims align best with our own rarely enter into the equation.

After a general election the new government will typically spend the first year or two undoing half of what the previous government did and failing to implement the all but the easiest of the changes it promised, then the people will come to realise that this lot are only marginally different and no better. After that come two more years when all the government does is try to engineer success in the next election. There will be tax cuts and promises of controlled immigration, plentiful jobs and housing, milk and honey. They know it's all cynical lies and we know it's all cynical lies, but all we can do is put a cross in a box.

The party's over. There are no rules say we have to have political parties. Why not have a parliament of individuals? Vote for candidates not because they are members of one party or another but because they are the best speakers, their ideas are most like yours, they are rooted in your area, they write a good leaflet, their promises sound deliverable, they're good looking (OK, not that). That should provide a parliament best representing the wishes of people in all the disparate parts of the country, but what about government? With parties it's simple, the one with the most seats runs the show. Who runs that party, though, is less democratic - the party decides by whatever mechanism it want to use: the party decides on a leader; the winning party's leader becomes prime minister; the prime minister selects a cabinet and they run the country - until the next election. Without parties, people would fill parliament with who they thought the best candidates. The parliament could decide on a leader in the same way parties decide, and the leader could appoint a cabinet.

General election. The system of parliamentary terms and general elections every few years means politicians focus on what will get them re-elected next time rather than what is best for the country or their constituents in the longer term. This means big projects which might involve some short-term sacrifices for the long-term good stand little chance of being adopted. More gas and oil will reduce the prices and make heating and travel cheaper today but taxing fossil fuels and sequestering carbon increase today's prices even though they will save billions in ten or more years by helping slow global warming. The voters should be able to choose their representatives in parliament and to change them if they do not perform, but there's no reason for the whole country to do this at once. Individual MPs could serve three-year terms, for example and then be re-elected if they are still popular. Or have to face re-election in less than three years if enough of their constituents were unhappy with them. Instead of being relatively fixed for five years, parliament would be in constant flux as a few MPs changed every month or two. In the same way as constituencies had more immediate control over their MP, parliament could confirm or unseat its leader, keeping the government in touch with the wishes of all MPs. Choosing a new leader would be a less drastic change than bringing in a new party with new policies. The flavour of parliament would be evolving constantly but gradually, and a new leader and the cabinet they appointed might have quite different priorities and but would be restrained by the wishes of parliament. Election would be general but a more fluid and gradual process than it is now.

Slow government, the result of this constant, gradual parliamentary evolution, would no longer be a matter of stop/start and violent swings from left to right. There would be no big elections on the horizon, just constant adjustment as the public swapped those with outdated views for fresh thinkers. With no big elections there would be no national policy shifts designed to win votes and long-term planning and innovation might stand a chance.  

Pol.is is a platform for democratic public conversation and debate which has been shown to avoid the extremism and conflict of most online forums such as Twitter and to encourage constructive discussion and positive outcomes. It played a major role in framing government policy to reflect public opinion in Taiwan and has been used tentatively and experimentally by other democracies. An occasional cross in a box is  a ludicrously limited form of public participation in government and developments like pol.is show a way democracy can engage constantly with government, providing feedback and offering ideas. If any one of our independent MPs could invite debate among engaged and interested members of the public, they could show how their ideas were not theirs alone but were supported by their constituents.