The social contract, so I was taught at school, is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is the agreement whereby we citizens exchange some of our natural freedom in exchange for the maintenance of social order and the protection of our remaining rights.
The Social Contract (1762) was the title of a book by the French writer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, although the phrase originated in the earlier Enlightenment. Monarchs (such as Louis XIV of France) had claimed that their authority to rule was blessed by God and conferred through the Church. This was known as the divine right of kings. Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, argued instead that it was a civil contract, rooted in law and order. They offered a humanist challenge to the mystical powers of the Church.
The will of the people
According to the social contract theory, governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. We exchanged the Almighty for the popular will, as expressed through a general election. The transition was handled, in this country, with compromise, good humour, and an absence of tumbrils, which was a great improvement on France. But there we have become stuck.
Nowadays, the King’s speech may not be written by him personally, but by his elected government, and spoken through his gritted teeth. I remain to be convinced that our version of the popular will is less vague and mystical than the divine authority that it purported to replace.
But, which people?
The current government was chosen by 0.03% of the British people, which is not much of a mandate. Our party-political system, however, works in a different way. Rishi Sunak’s cabinet represents the Conservative Party, which won a general election in 2019, with 43.6% of the popular vote in a contest, where 67.3% of the British electorate chose to vote.
Three prime ministers and more than three cabinets ago, the Conservatives won an election with the support of about a third of those who were eligible to vote, which gave them 363 seats in the Commons, and a large majority over the opposition. “The voice of the British people”, pronounced David Dimbleby, with the authority of the BBC, “has spoken”.
Broken promises and undelivered pledges
Few proposals in the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto have stood the test of time. No, there is not a new Manchester-to-Leeds rail line, to link up with HS2. There is no HS2, and no plans beyond a quick shuttle between Birmingham and Euston. No, there are not 50,000 more nurses, 40 new hospitals and a points-based system for immigrants. There was not a constitutional conference to allow the prime minister to prorogue parliament and curtail the opposition. And, no, Brexit has not been done, not even by the target of January 2020. It is still a dreadful muddle.
The social contract and the legitimacy to govern
However, election pledges should not be confused with the will of the people. Our democratic system rests upon a metaphor, no more than a literary conceit. It pretends that an opinion poll, taken at intervals, can confer the same power over our lives that was once endorsed by the approval of the Church. Its purpose is to grant the ruling party the authority to make decisions on our behalf. That, as Sir Humphrey might say, “is a bold claim, Prime Minister!”
The party’s license to rule must be renewed after every four or five years. That is one of its constraints, and, in practice, there are others, such as the approval of the second chamber of the House of Lords. We have our obligations under international treaties, which many Brexiters resent. For a self-proclaimed democracy, however, we still rely upon skimpy codes of conduct that strengthen the party in government at the expense of everyone else.
Laudable intentions do exist
I do not want to cast aspersions. Many MPs want to ‘make a difference’ and serve their constituencies like humble social workers. They are not motivated only by the lust for power. Sometimes, they take on the burden of too much responsibility. They want to change everything and when they fail to do so, they can plunge into a deep depression. There are seven Westminster bars within the sound of the division bell. They are all profoundly needed.
Nor do I wish to suggest that political parties make promises simply to get into power. They do have their own values. They do not fling around words like ‘freedom’, ‘equality’, ‘net zero’ and ‘sovereignty’ just because they can spell them. They firmly believe that the nation needs their services and not those of the other side. Let us not be cynical!
And so do less noble aims
There is, however, a school of parliamentary special advisers, led by spad Dominic, who have been trained in a more hard-headed approach – power first, values later. They do not over-think the popular will. They do not worry about its origins in the Protestant movement. In their view, a political manifesto is like any other kind of product. It needs market research, manufacture, and salesmanship.
Their skills have become enhanced by the internet, big data, and research conducted by the departments of the behavioural sciences. It is now possible to describe scientifically what is meant by the popular will. These whizz-kids know how to bring together sources of information, such as shopping habits, dating sites, and other online practices; and to provide algorithms of public behaviour without having to rely upon intuitive guesswork.
Careerists with little real-world experience
Some spads, according to Rory Stewart in his recent book, Politics on the Edge, have achieved high office without having ventured much beyond the numbers on their spreadsheets. This may be so, but something as speculative as the popular will can now be given definitions, statistics, and brought into line with other supposedly objective assumptions that we make in our daily lives. Is democracy merely the word for a political market economy?
Democracy in danger of being debased
I have the uneasy suspicion, however, that we have turned the meaning of democracy upside down. Instead of giving power to the people, we have given power back to government. We have allowed the party-political wannabes to pretend that they are speaking on our behalf, whereas they are reciting platitudes from their databases. When they get into parliament, they obey the party whips. This is what democracy has come to mean.
Returning to a true social contract
This will be a year of elections. Our wastepaper baskets will be filled with manifestos from politicians, explaining what they want to do for us. We should reverse this process. We should remember the social contract, and write a Citizens’ Manifesto for those who wish to be employed by us in government. It need not be complicated. We need clean water, clean air, good communication, and friendly relations with our neighbours. We need safety in the streets and in national defence.
We need not set the bar too high. We know that some aims may be difficult to achieve. But we must not set the bar too low. We should be able to sack those who are lazy, corrupt, or negligent. We should not wait several years for another election. By then, the damage may be done.
Democracy is a demanding word. It leaves no room for complacency.
