Individual or Citizen?

What does it mean to be a citizen? To live among others in this country, certainly. To pay taxes which contribute to enabling the country to function, certainly [even the tax-hating Right love their war and security machines and Government jobs]. To have some say over how much tax we pay and on what it is spent? Surely. So how can we have that say if we eschew the very means which enable it - voting?

Some say there is no point in voting - nothing changes. Yet how else are politicians to be influenced to pass laws if not by voters? Mere opinion polls carry no power, like the real thing. Others say that all parties are the same - but clearly they are not, or political discourse would be at an end or at least less vicious and tribal. Some say that certain categories of society should not be allowed to vote - the under-18s; criminals; peers - yet surely those very categories have as much connection with what tax is spent on as any. Others would and do argue that just as taxes are inevitable, so why should voting not be mandatory too. Here lies a libertarian paradox - does freedom lie in paying or not paying tax?

Not voting - or even not registering to vote - can be seen as self-disenfranchisement; a distancing of the individual from the State and its interference in lives. This may be prevalent among those feeling excluded from society, those looking for new models for self-expression or those who feel let down by the current structures. Yet all those lives are lived among the shared culture, infrastructure, justice systems and public services managed by the very State so apparently disliked. People, it is clear, must feel that voting is important either because they feel a social duty from living in a community; or because there is a particular local or topical decision to be made to which they can relate or is seen as important. Nobody, surely, can be immune to the issues for which the State [including Local Government] acts on our behalf, be they economically deprived [in which case they are likely to be dependent] or affluent [in which case they may be concerned with how tax is applied].

Traditional politics, though, fails to make such arguments effectively to millions. Major parties are seen as tribal but cut from similar cloth and defensive of their accumulated influence. Smaller parties are seen as unable to grasp the levers of power with which to deliver their sometimes preferred agendas. Single issues and new media through which to espouse them may attract many but lead to neither votes nor laws. The lot of millions of workers without effective say on the conditions in their won workplaces may be an object lesson in the need for democracy to be shared and actively used by everybody. The challenge of democracy lies in how to make it attractive to and practised by all ages and categories of citizen. Labour of all political parties should be the champion of citizens and leave individualism to the others.

So what IS democracy?

You must have heard people say: "Oh, I could never vote for [Ed/Cameron/Farage etc]". Well, of course they cannot unless they live in the nominee's constituency. In a representative democracy we do not vote for a Party; for a Leader; for a set of ideas. We can only vote for a candidate in our own constituency. True, we may be motivated by any of the above to support that representative but our vote is for the person. S/he may prove a Party loyalist or a rebel; inspirational or disappointing. And the person we support may not even be elected, leaving our interests in the hands of someone with whose values we may be wildly at odds. This is our system.

The word "democracy" brings together "the people" and "power". This remote lottery of a representative system may seem rather estranged from the expectations we are encouraged to have about our empowerment. The legitimacy as an elected representative of someone for whom perhaps only 20,000 people have voted may seem questionable. It is no wonder that many people follow the dubious lead of demagogues who eschew the Party system; or engage in politics through single-issue campaigns and petitions, not least when the latter may attract tens or even hundreds of thousands of signatories. These may feel a sense of belonging, engagement and empowerment greater than that of belonging even to one of the large Parties, whose policies one may agree withy only in part. So these alternatives suit "the people"; but have little apparent power. The latter still lies in the hands of the Parties which win elections, for the foreseeable future.

For this reason, despite all of the criticisms one can justly make of the system we have, it still seems that the only way of making democracy work is to engage in its mechanisms, including finding the person who merits your vote. I shall be voting for my local Labour candidate, Solomon Curtis, in Wealden on May 7th. Join me.

OK to be angry

Last week this blog centred on fear as a poor basis for political choices. But what about ANGER? Personally, I am not especially prone to succumbing to high states of emotion but my politics has been heavily charged with anger. It was fury at LibDem hypocrisy which led me, for the first time in my life to join a political party. It is anger which makes me seek a safety valve in tweeting and blogging, if only to save the TV from assault. It is anger at he treatment of fellow human beings by this Government which determines my allegiance to Labour. [Not that the latter is immune from my ire - its Byzantine processes and infuriating caution make it tempting to seek solace in more radical alternatives]

It might seem that anger, like fear, should not be the determinant of one's vote. We rationalists would wish the future to be based on evidence and human needs. But without passion we may end up doing nothing, for ourselves or for others. That way lies the sort of vacuum which allows the ruthless greed of the Right to move in unhindered. So let it out. Be justifiably angry. Let emotions give courage to do the right things.

Be afraid of fear

Is fear a good basis for choice of government? Fear of more of the same? Fear of change and the unknown? Fear of foreigners? These are the agendas of demagogues but do Farages and Brands make for good governance? Surely not. They simply criticise whilst offering no viable solutions or alternative government. We should vote for outcomes, goals, for a country run better according to our beliefs, needs, values.

Recent debate has suggested that, with no overall majority for any party likely, we may enter a period of huge uncertainty or even paralysis, undesirable, no matter how it arises. Nor do alternatives taking place elsewhere in the World look much more attractive to believers in democracy. Disregarding the chaotic aftermaths of popular discontent with past governance in Libya or Syria, the stability now offered [and apparently liked by many] in their countries by Putin, Sisi and even Erdogan can hardly appeal. This sort of autocracy we should indeed fear.

The probability of a hung Parliament is created by citizens' hunger for something better suited to their perception of the country's priorities. For an increasing number, this means not more of the same, of the familiar, stale formal groupings. But for all of the imperfections of our sclerotic system, responding to fears may lead to results we will find useless or even abhorrent. Perhaps we need instead to work to change our institutions from within rather than dumping them in favour of a vacuum which may be filled by less desirable solutions. Until it proves to fail, let us hold fast to voting Labour for a more equal, less fearful society.