Real democracy vs. 'eye-catching initiatives'

Rob Knight — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:06:44 +0000

According to the BBC, Downing Street's e-petition system received its one-millionth signature on Tuesday. Triumph for the use of the internet for political engagement, or pointless sham?

On the face of it, the idea seems to have some merit; an attempt to cut out the barriers between the PM and the public, although some may wonder about the Presidential tone of the exercise - after all, wasn't it the King or Queen who received petitions from their subjects in the past? But such judgements are superficial. The question is not whether it looks good, or looks bad; the question is whether or not it achieves any useful purpose.

On that score, it seems hard to identify what that purpose might be. There have been lots of petitions, and lots of signatures, but nowhere is there any sign that these petitions have prompted even the slightest change in Government policy. The petitions are not referenda, they have no legal standing and, thus far, seem to represent nothing more than a place for people to vent their feelings. But effective politics isn't just about getting something off your chest, be it opposition to the hunting ban (the 2nd-most-popular petition) or reform of road taxation (the most popular). Politics should be about achieving real change and real debate, something this one-sided (you ask, Tony ignores) system cannot deliver.

The problem is, in fact, quite simple. There is no way that one man, even the Prime Minister with his aides and assistants, can engage in political debate with an electorate of tens of millions. Real democracy is local, where people have a chance of talking to their elected representatives and where the power of the ballot box ensures that their concerns are answered. Government is more likely to be influenced by the loss of back-bench MP's seats than by petitions on a website which can safely be ignored. Nobody can really believe that, by signing a petition against the hunting ban, or against ID cards, they will bring about a change in government policy.

Perhaps the more interesting petition is the 5th-most-popular one, to 'Save the Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford from cuts or closure'. In excess of 14,000 signatures for an essentially local issue means that there must be substantial local interest. But why are the campaigners petitioning the PM? The answer to that question exposes what is wrong with democracy in Britain, most especially in England: there is simply no local democratically-elected official worth complaining to. Although local hospitals are regionally managed, this is done by unelected health authorities, and the first democratically-elected person with real power over health issues is the Secretary of State for Health, and her only direct superior is the Prime Minister, neither of whom are likely to be swayed by any amount of local support for a petition.

If we want real democratic engagement, real diversity and real power in the hands of citizens, control of such services must be transferred to local democratic institutions. This post raises some good ideas about how this might work. If we want real power over our public services, local democratic control is essential. No number of Number 10 initiatives can be a substitute for real democracy.

tony blair

Real democracy vs. 'eye-catching initiatives'