In his valedictory speech to parliament, Tony Benn put forward five questions as the basis for determining the quality and strength of a democracy: “What power have you got?” “Where did you get it from?” “In whose interests do you exercise it?” “To whom are you accountable?” And “how can we get rid of you?”
Of the five, this last question was the most critical to Benn, for without the ability of the governed to remove and replace those who govern them, a system cannot be considered truly democratic.
This should give us pause.
First-past-the-post: distorting the demos
The first-past-the-post electoral system is often held up by its supporters as providing a sound mechanism by which the public can eject governments from office. By deliberately distorting the relationship between votes cast and seats won, it is supposed to facilitate the smooth transfer of power from one party to another.
In fact, it is not so straightforward: take the Labour government by the time of the 2005 election. Eight years into its administration, and two years on from the deeply unpopular invasion of Iraq, Labour was nervous. Despite their leader’s dismal approval ratings – usually a strong indicator of the outcome of an election – Tony Blair was returned as prime minister, with Labour gaining 355 seats, a majority of 66, on a vote share of 35.2%, the smallest of any majority government in UK electoral history.
Casting ahead to the next general election, we can expect a degree of repetition. At the start of the year, renowned pollster Peter Kellner determined that the Conservatives could remain the largest party in parliament even with a 5% Labour lead in vote share. Falling support for the SNP in the interim has clouded the picture, but what is clear is that in our current system, it is not so easy to punish a party, however unpopular, or whatever mistakes it has made.
A culture of impunity and entitlement
The increasing number of safe seats is one of the reasons why the first-past-the-post system can no longer be relied upon to deliver – even by its own standards. It should also have Tony Benn’s fourth question ringing in our ears: “to whom are you accountable?” The effective promise of a job for life to a significant number of our elected representatives is a recipe for arrogance and corruption in office. And the results are plain for all to see.
Parties in lockdown, bullying by ministers, fudging taxes, cash for questions – first-past-the-post nurtures a culture of impunity and entitlement rather than a commitment to accountability.
Of course, most MPs are honest, decent and enter parliament with the best of motivations. The trouble is that the system depends to an excessive extent on the honourable intentions of individuals with no reliable check on those who do not behave properly. It is an issue that goes to the heart of trust in politics and standards in public life. We need to change the way our democracy operates to overcome it.
Proportional representation: responsive and accountable
The introduction of proportional representation would enhance the accountability of our representatives by providing both a genuine choice and fair representation to all voters.
At present, to oust a sitting MP, opposition voters have to decide whether to vote according to their party preference, or to the relative chances of any one party defeating the incumbent. Under proportional representation, this would no longer be necessary because representation is guaranteed in accordance with the share of the votes cast – people could vote knowing they would get an MP they’d voted for, as happens in most democracies.
The benefits of such a change would be self-reinforcing: when voters know that their votes count and that their voices will be heard, they are more likely to engage with the political process and hold their elected representatives to account. In turn, this would help to create a more responsive and accountable democracy, where politicians are under more pressure to act in the interests of those that elect them.
Parties – and therefore government – are also more accountable under proportional systems. Elections often result in no single party gaining control of parliament, meaning that to form a government, parties must work together – grown-up, transparent politics. Unlike with first-past-the-post, where this same process of horse-trading is carried out between different factions of a single party behind closed doors, there is more transparency and hence accountability in the process under PR, because these negotiations tend to happen in full view of the public.
Change in proportion
Despite much speculation to the contrary, the evidence from countries using proportional systems also shows that parties can be thrown out of office and big changes can happen. For instance, in Germany, in 2021 the ruling CDU/CSU (which had been in coalition with the SPD) was punished at the polls following clashes between the CDU and CSU and Angela Merkel’s announcement that she was standing down. The CDU, the habitual party of government in post-war German politics, and continuously from 2005 to 2021, was out of power.
Likewise, following Finland’s recent elections, the left-leaning SDP government (in coalition with other parties) is set to be replaced by the right-wing National Coalition party (probably in coalition with other right-of-centre groups).
These two examples, and others from around the world, dispel the myth that PR guarantees a permanent place at the heart of government for any one party, regardless of that party’s performance in power.
As citizens in a democracy, we rely on our political system to represent our interests and respond to our demands. It’s clear that our politics, both underpinned and undermined by first-past-the-post, is failing to match up to that challenge. Westminster is plagued by corruption, entitlement, and a lack of accountability. We need to Sort The System.
Sort The System is a mass lobby of Parliament taking place on 24 May to call for proportional representation.
CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT THE BYLINES NETWORK CROWDFUNDER!
