The Voice of Spalding and South Holland
Most countries that satisfy the criteria to justify a claim to be democratic have in place special constitutional arrangement to ensure that any proposed changes to their system of governance or to its existing social and economic relationships must be supported by a clear majority of all citizens entitled to vote.
In the 1950s Lord Hailsham described Britain’s constitutional arrangement as an elected dictatorship in which the electorate, at a time of the Government’s choosing and in circumstances which favoured its re-election, had the opportunity to eject the Government in power out of office.
The British claim to be democratic rested on its political structures rather than its constitution. British politics since the 17th century has been dominated by two political groupings each consisting of parliamentarians, commoners and lords, in factions holding divergent views on a whole range of issues, whose access to power was dependant on a willingness to compromise to achieve power.
It was recognised and accepted that compromise never gave organised factions in ‘broad church’ parties all that they wanted but it was sufficient, for the moment, to sustain the political coherence that promoted the wellbeing and best interest of the country while giving political opponents time to persuade the majority of their fellow parliamentarians and the citizens at large, by any lawful means, to support their propositions.
Our British representative democracy absorbed the extension of the right to vote to all adults and accommodated the changes in demographic concentration of the electorate, at a cost. The principle that every adult’s vote carried the same influence, however frequently electoral district boundaries are changed, was eroded. Maintaining social and political coherence was the paramount consideration.
In my youth the two largest political parties between them garnered a large proportion of the votes cast in general elections on higher turnouts of voters. In the spirit of compromise new incoming governments did not sweep away all the policies and laws made by the previous government retaining such changes that had clearly been supported by the electorate at large
Times change. In the 2015 general election 62 per cent of those who chose to vote did not vote Conservative, yet we have a Conservative Government majority in the House of Commons. The large disparities in the size of electoral districts is, thankfully, to be addressed.
In the referendum 17,400,000 electors voted to Leave the EU, 16,000,000 to Remain and 22 per cent of the registered electors did not vote. It is arrant and arrogant for either the Leave or Remain camps to claim that if any elector who did not vote would, had they voted, have supported their side in the referendum. As it is a minority of the electorate are imposing their choice on the majority of the British people.
The British first-past-the-post, winner takes all, elected dictatorship approach to democracy is no longer fit for purpose. The referendum has exposed deep divisions in our society which can only be resolved, however unsatisfactorily for some, through a spirit of compromise.
It is every citizen’s right in a democracy to pursue any lawful means to persuade their fellow citizens that the choices they have made are poor ones.
The Leave camp continues to denigrate, traduce and trash the accumulated knowledge, competence, intellectual integrity and honesty of anyone who challenges their view or seeks to exercise their democratic rights. Our judiciary may not be a mirror image of our society but they are not enemies of the people. The real enemies of British democracy are the ideologues of Leave.
However, we are where we are. Brexit will happen. Without compromise, no outcome will restore the social and political cohesion.In or out of the EU our British family will face some hard and unpalatable choices if we are to survive, let alone thrive.
Paul Walls
Claudette Avenue
Spalding
