Peter Kellner attacks direct democracy

Peter Kellner launches a devastatingly ineffective attack on direct democracy in the July issue of Prospect.

Kellner fails to find his target perhaps because he's not bothered to understand where this new strand of Conservative thinking comes from.

He sees calls for direct democracy as a sort of ad hoc response to expense-gate.

Maybe if he'd familiarised himself with books like, you know ..... Direct Democracy: an agenda for a new model party (clue: the title) or the Localist Papers or maybe even The Plan, he'd see there's more to this new conservatism than a knee-jerk attempt to ride the tide of anti-politics.  There's no shortage of literature on the subject over the past six or seven years - or of bloggers pushing it.

If he'd read up on his subject, he'd have a sense as to why direct democracy is attractive to the centre right as a means of recalibrating our politics and rebooting a leftist quango State. He'd see how localism and direct democracy are part of a coherent, over arching post-Thatcherite agenda.

He might even understand - if not agree - why some small state Conservatives see direct democracy as a means of re invigorating a spineless legislature that's failed to hold big government in check.

He fails on all counts. Instead he goes for the cheap "look-at-how-it's-failing-California" point.

I suspect that Kellner, like most on the left, can't quite bring himself to say that he hates letting the people decide for fear they'd not choose the outcomes he'd prefer. Instead he attacks referenda for their innate conservatism. Nowhere does it seem to occur to him that perhaps people, when allowed a say, generally, and wisely, dislike the grandiose schemes of politicians?

Oddly for a man who likes to call himself progressive, Kellner turns out to be extraordinarily conservative in defence of our system of nineteenth century representative democracy. When the fastest thing in the country was a horse, electing someone to sit in Westminster for several years to do your politics for you was how it had to be done. Kellner must surely see that in technical terms at least, politics no longer has to be something that a remote caste of politicians does for us?

Ultimately Kellner fails to show why direct democracy would be worse than what we currently have in SW1.

Direct democracy is attractive because it'll lead to better public policy making because it'd mean accountability. Leaving politics to politicians means it can take years for policy shortcomings to become apparent. And even when they do - see immigration, or defence procurement, or excessive business regulation, or welfare dependency - it takes years for anything to really change.

If this is the worst that can be levelled against the new conservative agenda, the left really is in trouble ....

Posted on 7 July 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

Unfortunately the extension of the franchise has gone hand in hand with the growth of the welfare state. Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an excellent discussion of the flaws of democracy and the way in which it allows 51% of the population to steal the wealth of the remaining 49%.

That said I'm in favour of decentralising power down to the smallest unit possible.

Posted on 7 July 2009 16:03 by Richard

Small local and accountable organisations will have the compelling advantage that they will do away with the cruelty inherent in large bureaucracies.
How many times have we seen officials "following the rules" and producing an appallingly cruel outcome?

Posted on 7 July 2009 16:30 by NickW

Douglas, I am somewhat surprised to see you give your support to the screening of the Us Now film in Parliament on Wednesday.

Implementation of such a plan would certainly mean the demise and death of our National Parliament in favour of regional government controlled by Brussels.

I can only draw the inference therefore from that support for the Lord Putnam sponsored viewing, that you also support the EU agenda of a Europe without states, a Europe of the regions.

Posted on 7 July 2009 16:52 by Ian Parker-Joseph

I am very much s supporter of the idea that in most things "small is good". I wouldn't be too unhappy with the present parliamentary system if only local government worked. If I felt my County Council or Parish Council could actually make a difference it would be worth while, but so much of their power has been stolen by Westminster that they have very little power. They are now simply agents for carrying out the various statutory tasks that have been piled on them by Westminster, via unelected regional bodies and thus there is now little real point in their existence.
The US states wouldn't stand for Washington taking power away from them, similar powers should be restored to our County Councils who should fight tooth and nail to keep them.
Incidentally, for the same reasons, I will now only give money to local charities. All the big ones seem to have become miniature Civil Services, being more interested in running a fancy headquarters than concentrating on their raison d'etre.

Posted on 7 July 2009 18:08 by Brian E.

Well put. I hope one day there can be an effective 'public veto' mechanism on government bills.

In this internet age it should be simple enough to set-up a system allowing the public to register to be eligible to vote in an online public veto. As government doesn't work on a series of anonymous votes (if a bill passes in parliament we know which of you voted for and against) neither should the online veto. Register with your passport number.

The absolute technicalities would be worked out later on (whether it requires 2/3rds to veto or a simple majority, what quorum of votes must there be for a bill to be blocked). Some would say this could cripple government. But it would only do so if they tried to pass laws the public didn't want. Of course in the case of the current lot, nearly everything would get vetoed and they would be forced to seriously consider a dissolution.

Posted on 8 July 2009 08:14 by Mark M

While you are certainly right that such ideas have been around in the Plan & blogsphere for a long time Mr Cameron's public endoresement does seem to post-date the expenses scandal. This not a bad thing - all new ideas come form small groups considered wacky by all right thinking people, then forard thinking populist stuff & end up with everybody saying they always knew that.

May I point out that your correct assessmentof the need for your Parliamentary representative to make all the decisions in the horse & buggy era also applies to the FPTP electoral system. FPTP is a very simple system & all that was practical in that era. here is no excuse for maintaining it now.

Posted on 8 July 2009 12:16 by Neil Craig

Make A Comment