How to turn Britain into a democracy

I don’t vote in elections any longer. I used to. For years, up until Tony Blair’s first victory, I voted regularly. General elections, local elections, European elections: I voted wherever I could. But I was younger then and more naïve. I believed that elections made a difference. I believed politicians. I believed Tony Blair. I was fooled for the last time.

But it isn’t a good thing for any country when people become disillusioned with politics. If voting is left to the minority who ‘always do it’, then the status quo will continue. The necessary changes for our future will no happen until it is too late.

Below are the things that I would do to re-energise politics in Britain, to make us into a true democracy. I can’t imagine many, if any, of them happening – the existing main parties prefer the present system because it is so undemocratic. While they are in opposition they may not be happy but they know that, at some time the wheel will turn around and they will be the party with the fraudulently massive majority.

First of all, many (maybe most) people in the country effectively have no vote. Yes, they can troop down to the polling station and drop their cards into the ballot boxes but, really, those cards may as well be blank. If you live in a ‘safe seat’, a constituency where the main MP is guaranteed to win, then your vote, whether it is for him or another, is wasted. If you live somewhere where there are two main parties, voting for anyone else is a waste. And if you want to vote for a minor party like the Greens or the BNP (hey, that’s freedom), unless you are very, very lucky, you may as well stay at home. Consequently I would bring in some form of PR (proportional representation). It doesn’t have to mean weak, indecisive governments: there are many different forms of PR. The advantages would be: representation for minor views; fewer extreme governments with massive majorities; and every vote becomes meaningful.

Secondly, I would make the second chamber (the House of Lords) completely elected. That is the principle of democracy after all. To prevent it just becoming a facsimile of the first chamber, I would remove the party system there so that people were elected as individuals. That way a single person could stand and different views would become more important.

Then, to prevent the Government fixing the election by choosing the most advantageous date, it would have fixed term, say four years like the USA. If that is unfortunate politically, well so be it. The Government makes the laws and decides the progress of its tenure. The second chamber would be elected halfway between the first chamber’s elections so that the two houses would be unlikely to end up with similar make-ups (which might happen if they were elected on the same day). After two years of the Government, if people were displeased by their performance, they could vote in a second chamber which would oppose them. If they were happy with the Government, they could elect a second chamber which would assist them.

Naturally I would get rid of the monarchy which has no place in a modern democracy. She could remain on as a symbolic figure if people wished, but the people must have the ability to throw out a leader that they do not like. And if, you say, the Queen has no power, then what is she doing there? We can’t get rid of the Prime Minister except by removing the Government so it’s take it or leave it at the moment. Accept the party’s leader as Prime Minister or vote for another party which you may not like. We need an elected president.

Elections every two years may seem extreme, especially when you see the low turnout at our present four to five year elections, but that low turnout is due to disillusionment. If people’s votes actually counted, we would be more inclined to vote so turnout would be higher. If we brought in Internet and postal voting, it would be easier anyway. We could always make it a five-year term if necessary.

And what of compulsory voting? No. Never. Over my dead body. First, it’s undemocratic – it goes against the principle of freedom to vote. The right to follow a religion must include the right not to follow a religion. The right to free speech also encompasses the right to silence. So the right to vote must have the right not to vote. (You may say you could always vote for ‘No preferred choice’. Well what’s the point of that? Should atheists have to march to a church on a Sunday just so that they turn around at the door and come home?) Secondly it disguises the apathy and disillusionment that exists. If people are not voting, then we should ask why, not try and mask it with forced votes. And third, voting should be left to those who want to vote. If you’re interested enough to make the effort to vote, you will have taken some time to decide who you want to vote for. If you are voting because you must, then you are probably just going to tick the first box you see. Do we want an extremist candidate elected just because he was first on the voting form? Everybody should have the right to vote, but voting should be confined to those who have an interest in doing so.