The Price of Democracy

The question that has to be asked is not so much what that price is, but whether apathy minimises or increases the costs of democracy to the extent that it first destroys the processes then on to corrupt democracy itself?

A few days back I commented on a poll Sub Rosa had on her blog. The poll asked what the remuneration should be for Westminster MPs. I commented that I hadn't voted on the poll because I couldn't find a value relevant to the job they had or hadn't done. Then, as an afterthought, I added that I wouldn't pay them at all - I'd let the party they represented pay them.

Tongue in cheek, or throwaway, as the comment had been I thought it might have created a few reactionary sparks. However none appeared, so, as is my wont, with a shrug of quiet humility I turned to other tasks. But the idea wouldn't go away; if nothing else the sparks had excited the synapses - it had some merit beyond the throwaway and, while it may not be a pearl it wasn't so much being cast before the swine as being used as a method to corral and weigh up their value. So here goes.

Lets say the purpose of this exercise is to strengthen our democracy; to give it real goals and accountability. We all know the failings, if not the methods and tactics used to exploit them, of the present system; which in one way or another can all be branded with systemic corruption. From the electoral cradle through governmental lifestyles to their parliamentary graves, corruption has many names but collectively its called the game and its primary purpose is to devalue your vote to beyond the start of infinity. In the process and as an exercise in power it has already demolished the foundation of democracy. How then do we go about getting a fair day's work by paying a fair day's wage to the keepers of our democracy?

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume we have a population of 15 million eligible to vote - on that figure we allocate a price per vote (PPV - everybody loves acronyms) Lets call it £30, so the whole allocation related to MP salaries, expenses etc., would be around £450m per annum.

Or it would be except for the fact that even at General Elections there's little more than 50% who bother to vote. That by itself is a serious blow to democracy and, without putting too much spin on it, a damning indictment on those who profess to govern and work within it. In fact it could be alleged that the practitioners of the present system encourage and benefit from this lack of interest, this self disenfranchisement by the citizenry. In a first past the post system, they've already got rid of half the problem runners, the pros and the thoroughbreds are still in the race but the cuddies, cob's and asses are fed up seeing arses, so they'd rather put a tenner on the tote as a hoof on the track.

This isn't good for democracy, so the need is there to encourage the disillusioned and disenfranchised to use their votes, and for politics to be tied in to that encouragement. So to this end if at a General ( or any? ) Election, only 10 million vote then the allocation for the term of that parliament is only £300m instead of the £450m.

This £450/300m should be allocated to the parties in proportion to their share of the vote?

Why?

Good question. But the way I see it is, while we may change a system and invigorate a flagging democracy we're not likely to change human nature. So taking that as a given, I'd let the parties haggle in their own mire on whether the Rt Hon gets X and Suffolk Twit Y while Dull from Hull get Z. We don't care, we want winners not runners. And the failing of the present system is that the RtHon doesn't give a hoot what Dull from Hull wangles in expenses. Since it's all drawn from the unlimited common purse its fair game, but were it to come from the party coffers and the amounts claimed by the dullards was limiting the scope and style the RtHon believed was merited then the fur would fly under the war cries of competence, commitment and ability.

We don't want the distortions of safe seats and stipends, of entrepreneurial nepotism and the hammocks of tradition. We want the bastards to fight tooth and nail for the privilege of representing us under the bastion of real democracy. We might then, like the citizens of Caesar's Rome, possibly profit and get some amusement out of the process.

So there you have it - possibly more an outline than a blueprint; but in the immortal words " salus populi suprema lex est." any method of governance that fails that test is not fit for purpose. The present democracy and governance we have wouldn't even be entitled to sit the prelims.