I cling to democracy. It must be the best available system, must it not? It is the only system of government in which the wishes and needs of the populace must be taken into account by government. Tyranny, dictatorship, oligarchy, monarchy impose upon the people the dogmas and whims of individuals or cliques who may have no concern for the interests of their populace.
Such bad actors, usually backed by great wealth, are in the ascendancy across the world, deliberately weakening established democracies, including our own. The far right, as it did in Italy and Germany in the 1930s and more recently in India, Turkey and Hungary, uses the levers of democracy to gain power in order to destroy it.
Time for a constitution?
What we call ‘democracy’ is not the same as that of most countries. Excluding the autocratic Belarus, within Europe only the UK and France maintain a ‘first past the post‘ electoral system, arguing that coalitions invite in extremist minority parties. Yet other democracies thrive using alternative and more representative systems, some including devolved powers, while Whitehall maintains a vice-like grip over this country from its single base.
Would a written constitution such as others have, strengthen our democratic future? Should voting be compulsory to cement public engagement? How can we strengthen democracy in the face of an enemy within?
Events of recent years have shown just how vulnerable our form of democracy is: the use of Henry VIII powers; the attempt to prorogue parliament; the use of statutory instruments; lack of regard for process and transparency. The right-dominated Conservative government has used its majority to equip the executive with powers casuistically claimed to support ‘our liberal democracy’ but in reality giving it greater control over protest, elections and state funds. This should present a strong argument in favour of reforming the processes we use for democracy.
Running an economy is more complex than running a business but could there be, bearing in mind that we live in a capitalist world, merit in some aspects of corporate best practice?
Considering corporate governance
Most public limited companies (PLCs) separate the roles and responsibilities of Chair/Board, who represent the shareholders, and Chief Executive/Management, who run the business. The former appoints and can also replace the latter should they fail to perform as required. All parties share core accountabilities like Corporate Social Responsibility. Appointments are made to provide the organisation with the best skills to meet its challenges.
This separation of powers and application of skills is missing from the governance of this country. The current Cabinet misuses its majority to act as both Board (policy makers) and Executive (carrying out implementation) whilst in my view being corrupt and incompetent respectively. Its Chair (Head of State) is an over-blown figurehead without responsibility. Its Chief Executive (Prime Minister) has no expertise in executive management.
Its Departmental Directors (Ministers) have expertise in neither subject nor management, while those with these competencies (civil servants) have no delegated authority or are blocked and removed from office. Area Managers (Members of Parliament) are prone to limit their concern to their supporters, not the wider electorate. The needs of the market (public services) are subordinated to rewards for the party’s backers (dividends and fast tracked-contracts).
The Prime Minister has authority not only to decide on what his government will do but also over the appropriateness of his own and colleagues’ behaviour. It was Boris Johnson who decided whether Boris Johnson had breached the ministerial code, for example. Bypassing the established checks and balances of the justice system and parliament itself, ministers have been free to accrue greater power and wealth to themselves and their cronies. Sunak continues the trend, even exonerating a donor who incited violence against an MP. It is hard to envisage any PLC allowing such egregious behaviour at any level.
Accountability must lie with the government
This surely must be changed or democracy is done for. However, before speeding towards a corporate future, we must also acknowledge how business itself has contributed to the attack on democracy. In the last four years, while accountability must lie with the government, it has been big business, lobbying and enticing, which has tempted ministers into abandoning due diligence, accepting inducements dressed up as donations and funded so-called think-tanks and media advocating the diversion of policies and billions away from the priorities of the people. Adopting some business practices, however, does not have to mean selling out to business.
While the people still have a say in how we are governed, let us demand fairer voting, proper representation for all parts of the country and also a leaf or two from the book of corporate governance in respect of standards of behaviour, accountability and redress.
We are about to enter the process which makes democracy stand out against alternative systems of government: the right for the people to vote out those who try to damage it. Who runs the country is our business. Let us not waste the opportunity.
