For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery – Jonathan Swift
Whatever happened to the principle of government by consent? We hear the word in civil society all the time – parental consent, consent to data sharing, informed consent in healthcare. But in our government, in 2009, where is the consent of the people? How low does the turnout have to be and how many people have to vote for minority parties for consent to be acknowledged as missing from our polity? Consent is an active concept. Giving your consent is a way of participating in a decision which affects you. Do people consent because they don’t vote? I suggest they are witholding their consent. The ballot symbolises the transfer of the sovereign power of an individual citizen to their representative. In a democracy government must be by consent or the government is an imposition, and our parliamentarians imposters.
Every year I go to the Levellers Day commemoration in Burford in May and this year I found myself re-reading the Putney debates of 1647. The Putney debaters were the men of the victorious parliamentary army. They debated by what right did the government and parliament govern the people and what was the post-war settlement to look like? They included Colonel Thomas Rainborough, Captain Edward Sexby, Lieutenant-General Oliver Cromwell, Commissary-General Henry Ireton (names familiar to viewers of the recent Civil War drama The Devil’s Whore). Should parliament remain much as it was controlled by a privileged and monied few (Cromwell and Ireton’s position) or should it change – expose itself to a far-reaching new constitution and seek the consent of all the people to govern – the position put by Sexby and Rainborough.
Rainborough: “For really I think that the poorest he that is in England has a life to live as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it’s clear that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he has not had a voice to put himself under.”
Much of the underlying philosophy of ‘unalienable rights’ enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America arose from the Levellers ‘Freeborn John’ Lilburne’, William Walwyn & Richard Overton’s arguments on the issue of ‘No government without consent’ – but where is our constitution?
As the joke goes, it doesn’t matter what party you vote for, the government always gets in. Right now people are angry – they want a say on who gets paid what, they want to give active consent as to what taxes are raised and what it is spent on. So let’s accept that the 19th century party system is irrelevant. Whatever philosophical differences there may be in party positions, that isn’t what the people experience in how they are governed. For the people the party system is corrupt and self-serving. In the 1930’s Labour’s NEC leader Harold Laski talked about seizing an historical moment to achieve a “revolution by consent”. With social and economic disarray, a discredited parliament and a demoralised government, perhaps we should trust the people to renew our democracy. Let’s lay out the options for constitutional reform and let the people choose. It’s time for a new revolution by consent.
Cath
Your sentiments and goals are worthy. However, for consent, you need, once you are elected to have freedom to vote how you wish, and not having the whips forcing you to vote with the party etc., almost in fear of losing opportunities for advancement sometimes.
Moreover, we have got to modernise the whole set up so that debates are not like unruly shouting matches, bring in electronic voting for MPs, not the shuffling divisions as we see all the time.
My worry is that like you, past MPs who get to Westminster with all their good intentions, only to be shown that when you have power, you really must not relinquish it; particularly to the public like us, yet alone the elected MPs who should have acted at the behest of their constituents. After all, you cannot call yourself a ‘public servant’ and then whine when the public tell you what you should do.
I like you, wish to see a complete overall of the system. It may also mean moving away from the Commons if we cannot modernise the silly confrontational situation, silly PMQs which have nothing to do with holding the executive to account etc., etc.
I give my consent to the Government and all the parties to lay out their manifestos for change, my consent to act with all honesty and integrity, to put honour back into honourable and to set an example. Finally, I give my consent to cut the number of MPs and to make any upper house fully electable, and to change the party system and its stranglehold on local and national politics; it is time to come into the 21st century.We are after all educated and have access to modern technology; if someone tries to stop us from accessing information, we usually know someone who will help.
I will not hold my breath; psychologically speaking, most MPs are in denial, they need help to recognise that change is really needed.
I wait in anticipation of that revolution Cath
Best wishes
George
George – many thanks for your comment. I heartily endorse your reforming suggestions and would add some. Let’s ask the people if they are ready for: votes at 16, weekend voting; electronic voting; a method of proportional representation such as the single transferable vote; fewer constituencies and/or two member constituencies; a fully elected second chamber. These ideas have been debated for years and some have even been introduced half heartedly by our Labour government. Let’s see a section in each party manifesto at the next General Election which lays out the options.
First Past the Post serves the party machine’s interests, not the voter or the country. Party machines exist to minimise the chances of losing a seat or an election, which means they seek maximum control over the voter. The worst case of this “voter control” in recent times was the gerrymandering in Westminster constituency by Dame Shirley Porter.
To answer another point you raise, I am sorry you fear for my integrity in Parliament, should I be elected. Having been on a low income all my life I have had to get my kicks from things money can’t buy – like service, fellowship and love for my family and community. Cath
Cath
I am sure that if we bring about those changes you will have little problem with regard to your integrity being under attack; best wishes for the future; we need more people like yourself; determined, of strong character and knows what it means to be community orientated, who wish to bring about fellowship and more importantly, demonstrate how important our families are to us.
I like you, know what it is to have low incomes,even to the point of being unemployed back in the early 80s, when my children were aged 2 to 8.
Finally, you know when the argument for a complete sea change is won, when people accuse us of being hysterical and talk about witch hunts; a great deal of harm has been done to our country by using such tactics.
More and more MPs who come on the television; talking about suicide (there are a lot of people who find living in the real world where OFSTED comes into schools, no more money is coming in, jobs lost, pensions disappeared etc, etc, unbearable!), or that their constituents want them ; they are all in denial of the fact that there are a great number of people who want change; either accept this or stand down is my call.
Objectively speaking if one possibly can, the past weeks have shown that we need radical reform, not 10 years down line.
All the best with your endeavours Cath.