Posts
Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition in the UK,
recently proposed a public form of Prime Minister’s Questions suggesting that
this would make the PM more accountable. It is certainly an interesting idea,
and any proposition that would help to bridge the chasm between the governors
and the governed is welcome in these apathetic times. However, it would be a
sticking plaster over what is fast resembling a gaping sore: the utter contempt
in which most people hold politicians.
Personally, I never blame people for disliking politics or
politicians – it is a profession that has scandalised itself and has been the
chief architect of its own downfall. It is tempting to lay the blame squarely
at the feet of New Labour and their political machine (itself largely copied
from Clinton’s ’92 campaign). After all, many of their innovations excite
general disgust even two decades later – the culture of spin; occupying the
centre ground of politics; and media training to help MPs avoid answering
questions and to instead spout party political achievements.
However, although Blair and his cronies ought to bear some
of the blame, the startling and almost universal unpopularity of politicians
across the western world points to a wider malaise. Even when one individual’s
force of character and charisma briefly reverse the decline (think Obama,
Blair, Clinton or Sarkozy), their inability to live up to whatever they had to
promise to get elected inevitably disgusts the electorate. I believe that there
are three main ways in which politicians have fuelled their own unpopularity: perpetuating
the stranglehold over politics exercised by a certain group; allowing our
democratic institutions to decay; and using short-sighted media strategies. This
analysis is aimed at the UK, but, with some tweaking, could equally well apply
to France or the USA. Furthermore, it is important to point out that the
behaviour of politicians is not the sole cause of popular disengagement from
politics in general; other factors include – the decline of traditional class
identities; an increasing societal focus on consumption; and the failure of
electoral systems to keep pace with voter preferences (i.e. no e-voting).
1)
Government by the ambitious
Whenever David Cameron or George Osborne are criticised for
their aristocratic origins or familiar path to power, they reply that it
doesn’t matter where you come from provided that you’re the best at your job. I
have no particular issue with that answer, or their particular routes into Parliament
– Eton and Oxford are both fantastic educational institutions in their own
right. The problem is more that as a cabinet, as a Parliament, as a political
class, they appear to have wanted this all their lives – reflecting a triumph
of ambition over merit.
The people in the public eye at large are a relatively
diverse bunch, reflecting the fact that merit or talent is fairly equally
distributed across the population. However, Parliamentarians are anything but
(although which legislature isn’t?). To make Parliament more representative of
the nation all three parties are promoting women in place of the white public school
boys. However, as soon as you look into their backgrounds (middle class, Grammar/
Private school educated and Oxbridge attendee) the difference appears to be
cosmetic. Although that might be a reflection on the candidates that apply to
stand as MPs, it does demonstrate the death grip of a reasonably talented but
incredibly ambitious group. Whether they are selected as the political class or
they select themselves appears to me to be irrelevant.
When I look for patterns amongst MPs, schools and
universities are only a symptom of the disease. What is more apparent is the
prevalence of ambitious people from well-connected family backgrounds.
Furthermore, they appear to have precisely planned their ascent to Parliament.
That they pass through the Bar and Oxbridge is significant for the fact that
MPs have targeted and attended such institutions to equip themselves for
political office – they do not discover their ambition there. Rather PPE at
Oxford and the Bar seem to be the quickest route to power in the system as it
is currently constituted. So who are these people who grow up wanting to be Prime
Minister? Well, they are generally well-spoken, well-educated and are used to
stimulating discussion at home. The political class is upper middle class not
because of any class-based plot, but because their parents are more likely to
say ‘I want you to be PM someday’; or because their dinner party guests say
‘you’d make a great PM’; and because it seems achievable – clearly amongst some
that ambition crystallises.
People sense that there is something deeply wrong with how
people get into Parliament and how the selection process works. Even worse, it
stops people who would otherwise be interested from even applying. In this age
of fluid political beliefs, party leaders seem to desire power with a vague
idea as to what they’d change rather than seeking power solely to change the
country. Unfortunately, we are currently governed by those with the most ambition
– I would prefer to be governed by the most able.
2)
The decay of our democratic institutions
Like any big and powerful institution, Parliament has its
own-subculture. You can sense it when you visit the place, you can feel it
during exchanges in the chamber. MPs refer to ‘the other place’ (instead of the
upper chamber, the House of Lords), ‘Erskine May on Parliamentary procedure’
and ‘the mother of all Parliaments’.
A great number of MPs are apparently obsessed with the
dignity and importance of their office, which is why many stay on as
backbenchers even as the chances of promotion recede. And if you add a tiny bit
of power to the mix, you create a dangerously potent mixture – just look at the
select committee chiefs presiding over their kangaroo courts as if the whole
nation is hanging on their every word!
It’s all a dreadful overhang of empire – the trappings of
power remain even if real power is long gone. We are a medium sized nation with
medium sized socio-economic and military influence; we need a legislature that
reflects that fact. Tradition is great to the extent that it keeps Japanese
tourists clicking their cameras, but when it begins to stifle democracy itself it’s
time to say goodbye to the Blackrods (the Queen’s steward who bangs on the door
of the Commons to invite MPs to the Lords so that she can make her annual
speech because during the reign of….blah blah blah).
Parliament doesn’t make laws half the year, it is hard to
pass complicated legislation within a reasonable time frame, there is
no-electronic voting and it is obsessed with its own importance. And none of
that even touches on the reputational and political problems of the unelected
House of Lords! The US Congress is in need of reform because time has moved on
and its practices haven’t; Parliament is in need of reform because it is
choking on bizarre and restrictive conventions.
3)
Short-sighted media strategies
When the Coalition government attempts to make any sort of
policy announcement, Labour MPs fall over themselves to tweet that it is
evidence of ‘how out of touch’ the Conservatives are. On most episodes of
Question Time Coalition politicians ignore the question as asked and instead
spout a list of their achievements; Labour then comes back with a list of how
their ideas are in fact better. This all stems from the at best dated
calculation that the average voter will only remember easily digestible
information and that these sound-bites really get through.
What they don’t seem to grasp is that the viewer doesn’t
give a toss about these nonsensical lists; they are instead annoyed at no-one
answering their questions and left with the feeling that all politicians are as
bad as each other. Surely the benefit of any memory association is vastly
outweighed by the general disgust that the practice incites? Our system has
always been adversarial, but I believe that the petty, party-political point
scoring is a modern inception. The tiny minority of MPs actually speaking their
mind have either already been blacklisted or are not seeking promotion, leaving
a large group of apparently intelligent people refusing to engage in reasonable
analysis and instead accusing the other party of wrecking the economy.
The culture of briefing in order to shape newspaper
headlines is complex enough to be the subject of a blog by itself. I would say
though that such a process – even if it is as sordid as the Leveson inquiry
portrayed it – is a more secret affair between press officers and journalists.
It is less obviously irritating and damaging than television interviews and
appearances.
To conclude, although I never
blame people for disliking politicians, there is a distinction to be made
between politics and political thought. One can dislike the former without
renouncing the latter.
© Amarjeet Johal 2014 All Rights Reserved.
