19 May 2010: Reform Scotland/Sunday Times Essay Competition Results
Political Accountability in Scotland- Alasdair Hutchison 16-18 Category Winner
“How can we ensure that our politicians are answerable and effective in the light of the debate on devolution and the crisis in Westminster?”
John Gardner:
The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can.
There are two main factors in politics: the politicians and the people. To understand what is right and, more importantly, what is wrong with politics these two areas must be addressed. To ensure politicians are answerable they must be properly elected by the people. When they make a decision, it must be made on behalf of those that have chosen them as their representative. To ensure politicians are effective, they themselves must be exactly the right type of candidate. They should be in the job for everyone but themselves. By reforming both the means by which politicians are selected and the process by which they are elected, Scotland can look forward to a bright political future.
Richard M Nixon:
Politics would be a helluva good business if it weren’t for the goddamned people.
Ask anybody what they think of a politician and the answer will be the same. Fairly or unfairly, the MPs expenses scandal at Westminster has had an impact on the public’s opinion of politicians like nothing before. The expenses scandal showed just how out of touch with the public politicians have become.
The actions of senior politicians were in stark contrast to their words. Promising comprehensive reform, they instead ousted a slightly old-fashioned speaker and decreed that Westminster expenses would be externally regulated. While the Holyrood expenses system is actually regarded as being very efficient, politically accountability in Scotland comes from Westminster as well and so the lessons to be learned there are just as vital.
So how to tackle the problem of out of touch politicians? To begin with, a fresh input of politicians is essential. Politicians are elected as a representation of public opinion. As opinions change with time, so should MPs. Local party members should only be allowed to approve the candidate(s) (in the case of the Scottish Parliament) that will stand at election time. The candidate will come from a list of those wishing to stand and the local party members will pick who they feel is best for the community. Being the standing MP/MSP does not guarantee that you will stand automatically as a candidate next time round. The incumbent politician will be judged by the local party members on whether he/she has delivered promises and worked to a satisfactory level. If this were to happened at the next election, those heavily involved in the expenses scandal who still wish to stand would probably not get another chance.
Prospective candidates would be assessed on a variety of factors. For instance, those who have had a worthwhile experience in another job that may improve their ability to work as a politician will be looked upon favourably as opposed to those with impressive degrees. Vince Cable is highly respected for his foresight in relation to the economy. His CV includes a stint as Chief Economist at Shell. It is easy to say that more young people should be involved in politics, but a bit of experience goes a long way in the eyes of the electorate The selection process would also put to an end the increasing trend of ‘career politicians’ who step out of education in to the lower rungs of the political system, seeking to work their way up. How can someone whose only experience of international politics is from a textbook make an informed decision on an issue the size of, for example, the Iraq War?
Lastly, people want their politicians to have strong principles and morals. This does not include seeing them comment on topics favoured by the popular media, using tragic events as a means of political point- scoring and becoming involved in reality TV. Furthermore, being a politician is a job. Does a doctor or a lawyer have another job? Those who have a second job cannot be expected to perform at a level that justifies their salary as a politician.
None of these ideas are revolutionary, just common sense. I believe these changes would benefit a political system that has actually made some impressive strides in recent years. With a new system of selection in place and by taking on some simple advice, politician can return to the position of high public standing that they once held.
Paddy Ashdown:
Turnout is low- there is something sick in the heart of our politics.
If the past is a sign of thing to come the prospects don’t look encouraging for a high turnout in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election.
Since 1987, turnout in Scotland has been consistently lower than that of the UK as a whole in general elections. 2001 was a particularly telling year with Scottish turnout at an alarming 58.2%, the lowest since 1918 when many servicemen were still fighting in the war. The five UK constituencies with the lowest turnout in 2001, even more worryingly, all came from Glasgow.
However, the turnout figure for the Scottish Parliament do not provide good reading either. Introduced in 1999, the Scottish Parliament was meant to provide the Scottish people with their own representatives and there was a lot of optimism about this new parliament. Yet turnout was just 58.16%. In 2003 this fell, embarrassingly and depressingly, to below 50% and there was only a slight increased in the most recent elections in 2007.
It is frustrating that we have a new Parliament that is being elected by less than half the electorate and this must be tackled. When the idea of a Scottish Parliament was devised those behind it were clearly thinking of a different electoral system and so Proportional Representation was chosen. However, as with any electoral system, be it First Past the Post or otherwise, there are numerous pros and cons. But there is a way to better representation, to better politics, without changing the system. For the following reason, I honestly believe in the value of compulsory voting.
Voting is right and with right comes responsibility. If you’ve got the right to vote, you’ve got the responsibility to use that power. Compulsory voting would show the public that politicians trust them to make an informed decision and would not need to revert to protest voting. Incidentally, the most damaging of all protest votes, the ‘no-vote’, would disappear completely. Established countries such as Australia and Belgium both use the system and report turnout of over 90%.
Compulsory voting would get politicians being more open about the big issues. In return for their vote, the electorate will want concrete answers on the tough issues. Those in Glasgow who feel their vote serves no purpose will become increasingly aware that the things in life that seem as though they cannot be changed can actually be influenced.
A final benefit of this system would be that of its impact on the electorate. At present, it appears the majority of people are apolitical. From personal experience I know almost nobody my age, 17 and able to vote next year, who knows the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the country’s third party. If people know that they are going to be voting (non-attendees receive a fine and possible imprisonment if they refuse to pay their fines- as punishment for failing to pay rather than not voting) they will almost certainly pick up some interest in politics. And for those who really disagree or believe compulsory voting in undemocratic, these is always the ‘none of the above’ option. One of the biggest reasons for the decrease in turnout has been a loss of faith in politicians. Compulsory voting allows voters to register dissatisfaction with those standing for election, as opposed to the democratic process itself.
Compulsory voting would be the perfect opportunity for this SNP government to be brave and prove Scotland’s independent credentials. Only a strong country, financially and morally, can make great changes. In the early 20th century, the British government took some brave steps towards improving the country, giving men and women over a certain age the right to vote. Compulsory citing opens up the vote to the electorate in a similar way to what happening in 1928, which made politicians more accountable than ever. As a new decade begins, I strongly believe the Scottish Government can take another brave step towards improving the country and make politicians even more accountable.
Bill Moyers:
Ideas are great arrows, but there has to be a bow. And politics is the bow of idealism.
By making changes to the processes of selection and election, a path can be paved to a better political future for Scotland. Both changes would make politicians more answerable and effective, make the public more involved with the decisions that affect their lives and elevate politics beyond personality and point scoring. So I hand it over to you. After all, you can’t ask the architect to build the house.
A consideration on the ‘ancient laws’ Nicholas Gibson- 19-25 Category Winner
How can we ensure that our politicians are answerable and effective? We cannot begin to answer this question without first answering another: what constitutes an effective politician? To put it bluntly: what is the point of a politician? I shall proceed on the assumption that the point of a politician in a representative democracy (such as ours) is to represent the preferences of his or her constituency (however defined) in parliament.
Thus the question becomes: how to ensure answerability and representativeness? Or more precisely: how to perfect the instruments of accountability and representation? Of all the (many) instruments designed to achieve one or the other of these ends, there is only one which achieve the two simultaneously: the election. Insofar as it 1) communicates our preferences and 2) allows us to hold politicians to account when they misrepresent these preferences, the election is the most powerful institution in a representative democracy.
With this in mind, I would like to suggest a simple solution to our problem: more elections. To be precise: more frequent general elections. A move towards triennial ,biennial or even annual parliaments. In the following essay I shall consider some of the justifications and criticisms of this suggestion.
One need not search too hard for justifications. In fact, its is striking to observe just how prominent a feature the demand for more frequent elections has been in our political landscape until relatively recently. For example, if we examine the years which followed the Revolution of 1688, we find a powerful undercurrent opinion in favour of annual parliaments. Consider Jonathan Swift’s 1691 appeal to King William of Orange.
As to Parliaments, I adored the wisdom of the Gothic institution which made them annual. For who sees not that while such Assemblies are permitted to have a longer duration there grows up a commerce of corruption between the Ministry and the Deputies, wherein they both find their account to the manifest danger of liberty.
We find these sentiments echoed by the influential pamphleteer, Samuel Johnson:
We will never be better for this Revolution till we have a settlement of Parliaments. Our ancient right of anniversary Parliaments and nothing else can set the Government to rights. I wish that all our rights were reduced to one line, which is our right to have a Parliament every Kalends of May.
Their appeals were met with limited success as triennial parliaments were established in 1694. However the act was repealed some twenty-one years later, in response to the failed 1715 Jacobite uprising. In its place, septennial parliaments were established.
This seven-year term became of the parliamentary reformers’ main objects of attack for much of the next two centuries. In the 1790’s, inspired by the French Revolution, we see the emergence of Radical societies- the Sheffield and Manchester Corresponding Societies, Friends o the People Perth and Edinburgh, United Scotsmen and Untied Irishmen, etc- whose aim was to provide a space in which member could discuss political reform. These societies all arrived at the same two central demands, summarised by the London Corresponding Society in 1792:
Numerous as our grievances are, reform one alone and the others will disappear. What we must have is: An honest Parliament, an annual Parliament, a Parliament where each individual will have his representative.
It speaks volumes about the perceived significance of annual parliaments that their attainment was considered as important as that of universal male suffrage. Neither of these were attained before the societies were disbanded or banned, with many member being arrested for sedition and often deported. But as working and middle classes explained- and as they continued to be unrepresented in parliament- the ideas of these societies lived on, ultimately finding expression in the People’s Charter of 1838. The charter made six demands, beginning with universal male suffrage and ending with annual parliaments. Of the six, all were eventually met- except for annual parliaments.
Yet the hunger for annual parliaments did not subside until the twentieth century. Indeed, we find the cause being championed in the House of Commons in 1833, 1880. 1889. 1905 and 1910, before quinquennial parliaments were decided on in 1911. The topic then drops off the radar during the war and interwar periods, never to return.
Of course, the obvious conclusion to draw from this recent turn of events is that parliament got it right back in 1911. Perhaps Winston Churchill, speaking for the government in 1910, speaks also for the sentiments of the post-war public:
“We think five years is a good arrangement. We think it is a moderate arrangement, and that it occupies convenient middle situation between the reactionary duration of a seven years’ period and the revolutionary ardour {of a three years’ period}…”
The magnetism of this position is obvious. Quinquennial parliaments allow regular points of contact between government and electorate whilst also providing time enough for the successful implementation of policies. Annual (or even triennial) parliaments would not provide such an environment. Governments would fail to implement policies and be voted out annually. Instability and political gridlock would follow.
This narrative underpins the main argument against annual parliaments, and it usually emerges victorious. Yet whilst it is certainly conceivable, it is far from inevitable. Consider an alternative narrative: governments find that in order to be re-elected, they must offer more manageable promises which can be fulfilled within a single (twelve month ) electoral term. Governments which deliver their pledges can expect to be re-elected; those which don’t can expect to be dismissed.
Opponents might retort that such a scenario would encourage short-sightedness in governments: they would focus on the more immediate future at the expense of long-term social goals. While this is true to a degree- it is inevitable that government in office for a year would focus on goals achievable within that year- it is uncertain whether this would disadvantage society. If governments responded by dividing long-term goals into smaller more manageable ones, it is quite conceivable that such a scenario could be to the advantage of the society. For example, if a government aims to reduce unemployment by 5% by 2019, setting a target of 0.5% per year seems an effective way of achieving this.
There are other arguments which could be made in opposition- for example, that the £2/taxpayer each extra election would cost too much, or that local and European elections provide us with enough extra opportunities to hold our politicians to account. But these are relatively minor arguments and there is not the space to address them here. It is the threat of instability which is most challenging to the idea of annual parliaments. And indeed, it seems likely that they would cause a shock to the system- although the extent to which this would create instability is perhaps misinformed and exaggerated by opponents.
On the other hand, there is a strong deontological argument to be made in favour of more frequent elections. If we increase our contact with the central democratic institution, a priori we strengthen our democracy. One might even indulge the fantasy that such an arrangement could necessitate a more transparent political culture, that through the focus on realistic and immediate objectives politics might start to become more of a reality and presence in our lives that that political apathy might abate.
Politics is about trade-offs. Since we cannot tackle every problem faced by society, we must prioritise some over others. The questions we must ask ourselves is whether the problems posed by the ‘Westminster crisis’- this political anomie in which our representatives seem more like unrepresentatives, more questionable than answerable are more pressing than the threat of instability.
I, personally, am undecided. But for the purpose of addressing un-answerability and unrepresentativeness- which has been the purpose of this essay- more frequent elections seem singularly well-suited.