The sin of not voting

Jeremy Paxman's interview with Russell Brand on Newsnight continues to make waves and has been watched by well over half a million on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYcn3PuTTk)—maybe a lot more if viewing figures for the alternative versions on YouTube can be aggregated. It would be all too easy to dismiss Brand as a self-publicising showbiz personality with the gift of the gab and no more reason for being on the lighter-weight Newsnight than anyone else, if it were not for the fact that he has clearly struck a chord with many people, especially among the young.

As someone who has never missed a chance to vote—and would vote more often if given the chance by those who limit the extent to which we, the electorate, get to judge them—I am unlikely to condone his stance that he has never voted and never will. Not to vote is tacit complicity with the status quo. It can be dismissed as the inaction of someone who can't be bothered.

The true action of an objector to the status quo is to make the effort and go to the polling station and spoil ones ballot paper. If enough people who want change were to do this it might start to have an impact.

There are usually at least 30 per cent of the electorate that abstains with its feet in parliamentary elections, double or treble that in other elections. Imagine what would happen if we followed Australia's example, had compulsory voting and all the erstwhile abstainers chose 'none of the above'. Probably the end of the world as we know it.

Meanwhile, disillusionment with the way democracy works in practice under the dead hand of party politics will continue to spread. The electorate will engage with 'single issues' rather than endorsing a wholesale package of party policies. In the absence of referendums, petitions launched through social media become potent. This may not be a better model of democracy but it is more immediate, more responsive and more engaging. Nonetheless, it will have a hard and long struggle displacing the regime that Russell Brand and so many others despise.

Historical context
Incidentally, back in 1911 that great Sussex man Hilaire Belloc and his friend and fellow distributist Cecil Chesterton (GK's brother) wrote a book called The Party System. This expressed, a century ago, the same disgust at the parliamentary set-up that motivated Brand but in a more sustained and informed way. The Grumpy Old Voter is currently reading the book and will quite possibly return to the subject.

TTFN

Democracy and responsiveness

Let's go back to that pledge the Conservatives made to have for 'a listening council'. The statement was as follows: 'We want true democracy and will run an open and accessible Council where everyone can contribute.'

The nearest the world has ever come to true democracy is probably the Icelandic Althing of the early Middle Ages (or even earlier, whatever that period is called), when all citizens could gather together on the plains of Thingvellir. It is clearly impractical for everyone to gather physically in the council chamber at the town hall but an electronic town meeting is eminently possible. It just needs to be set up. Easy peasy.

An 'open' council presumably means one that works transparently. An 'accessible' council is presumably one in which all the members are easily and readily contactable. But the final part, 'where everyone can contribute', is almost certainly at best a pious wish, at worst a blatant deceit. Anyone with experience of civic activity knows that things don't work like that. Even well organised lobbies and pressure groups—even people with official positions, such as school governors—often fail to make an impact or even to be heard.

Imagine the Conservatives win a majority at the election and start to implement a car-friendly policy. Thousands object, preferring to see money spent on cheaper and more efficient public transport for all. Which are the Conservative councillors more likely to say: 'We agree. We'll change our policy' or 'We are pursuing our declared policy and see no reason to change, however strong the opposition'? Remember Tony Blair, rebuked by the courts for failing to run a proper consultation about nuclear power, saying there would be a new consultation but it wouldn't change the policy?

In a way, it is not unreasonable for a political party to stick to the principles and plans declared before an election (assuming they are clear and precise). Once upon a time, especially in the days of two-party politics, the choice could be broadly characterised as, say, right or left, capitalist or socialist, elitist or plebeian. In these days of diversified interests we are moving towards a political structure in which the voters have more interest in individual policies than factions with comprehensive packages, take it or leave it. More and more we leave it, which consequently means leaving the elected-by-a-minority bunch to screw things up as often as they get things right.

Councils can make easy pledges about being open and accessible, but how often can they claim to be flexible and responsive? Which will be the first to give up (some) power to let citizens in? Don't hold your breath.