« | Home | »

Elections v. Democracy

Tags:

When politicians talk about ‘democracy’, what they mostly mean is elections, though they do their best to avoid ones they are likely to lose. So a future citizens’ choice of civilian (probably political) police commissioners has been given legal standing without asking the people now told to vote. An institutionalised ego-trip has been enacted by Parliament, sovereign and inattentive. Contrariwise, all but one of the cities where elected mayors were proposed, and the notion foolishly entrusted to the citizenry, have rejected them.

We need to think more intelligently about democracy than identifying it with the simple function of voting for a candidate. What could be more profoundly undemocratic than an elected House of Lords filled with overparted councillors and second-line Spads, all chosen by the local party committee heavily leant on by the London apparat?

Meanwhile, Adrian Beecroft gives the Conservatives money and has his plans for clubbing the workers given serious consideration. As a way of making politics more democratic, stripping out the purchase of influence in Parliament outruns more (and ever less attended) elections by a Swedish mile.

Comments on “Elections v. Democracy”

  1. semitone says:

    “What could be more profoundly undemocratic than an elected House of Lords filled with overparted councillors and second-line Spads, all chosen by the local party committee heavily leant on by the London apparat?”

    I assume this is a rhetorical question, but I’ll bite.

    The answer is: any House of Lords containing hereditary peers. The councillors and SpAds would at least belong to political parties whose manifestos are published before each election.

    But of course I agree with the article as a whole, and the last sentence in particular.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...
    • Geoff Roberts on What happened in Cologne?: The most surprising thing about the events in Cologne (and the most disturbing) is that some 600 incidents of theft, harrasment and rape were reported...
    • EmilyEmily on What happened in Cologne?: The author's argument is straightforward: Sexual violence is one beast; fears about migrants is another - let's not confuse the two. Alfalfa's poin...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement