Off the back of politics lectures and tutorials, I thought I'd air my apparently rather controversial views on the democratic system currently used in the United Kingdom. This comes amid reports that the UK is under increasing pressure to allow prisoners the vote.
Britain has a long standing relationship with democracy and sees itself as the first bastion of democracy. Being the first major nation to develop something close to the modern sense of democracy. A view that in some ways can be see as hypocritical, with the retention of the monarchy whereas other nations have ousted theirs. Some claim the monarchy only currently survives for its tourism which although a good form of revenue gives a poor image of the UK if that is the case.
For elections in the UK, the country is divided into constituencies and the population vote for a MP to represent them in the House of Commons. What happened in the last election showed the devolution of British politics and the population's distinct lack of interest in local politics. The idea that a party that currently forms part of the coalition has been voted in because of their leader and the fact they were seen by many as the only option is something that shows UK politics has become a sorry state of affairs. The media combined with public disillusionment with local politics after the expenses scandal turned the last election into a straight up vote between Cameron, Clegg and Brown instead of the focus on the MP's the public would actually be voting for. Britain's political structure is effectively wasted if the focus continues to be on the leader of the nation and not the focus on all those combined who represent us.
Recent news reports also claim that now the UK, under increasing pressure from its European counterparts, is to give the vote to prisoners. Here I think I am in agreement with many British politicians, as part of the criminal punishment certain rights are rescinded and the right to vote should not be an exception to that. Those who flout the laws of the state deserve no say in the way the state should be run.
This in turn led me to question whether every Average Joe deserves the right to vote and I have to say honestly that I don't think so. Yes, everyone pays taxes and so the right to vote should follow but I feel taxes should only give you the right to live in the state and be protected by it. The reasoning behind this is that those who are not politically active or aware are voting purely on who they've voted for for the last 20 years or because 'that bloke on the telly sounded nice'. Surely people who are thinking in such a manner show no knowledge whatsoever of what they are voting for and the implications that potentially has on the United Kingdom. Although this is a rather elitist view I fear elitism is necessary to improve the popularity and the workings of politics. Hopefully 'intelligent voting' will produce better governments under more pressure to think of how to best serve the nation. Unfortunately carrying out a system of such nature would complex. How do you define political activity and awareness? In its boiled down form Who really deserves the vote?
Faith in British politics has dropped significantly and from the outside looking in something seems fundamentally wrong with the system currently used. At the risk of sounding like Obama, Cameron or the like, there needs to be a top-to-bottom change in British politics. The sooner the better.
Oh and it was all going so well until the taxes!
ReplyDeleteDespite being a tory (and thus usually more elitist then you!), I have to disagree with you! For me, the idea that to pay taxes only grants you protection and a right to stay in the country bears far to much similarity to the Mafia, and other criminal organisations, demanding cash for protection, or else being forced out of the district...very worrying indeed! It would be a crying shame to have the country dragged back to the medieval ages, where the executive (whoever it may be) demands money only for residency rights and protection.
How else do the poorest (less educated) citizens avoid being left behind, and forgotten, condemned to a country of no social movement nor advancement. Unfortunately I feel its a rather naive view of human kind to think that there won't be characters in the government who would seek to advance their social group, with little care for the lower classes. People are egoistical in their very nature!
Sorry for being anonymous. cant be bothered making a profile, of any sort.
ReplyDeleteAnyway. your analysis of the public and their political behaviour is narrow minded. The media has a huge part to play in making people say 'nice man on the telly'. taking it out on the public is a simplistic answer, furthermore you are targeting the symptom, not the cause. I'm not going to bother proposing alternative (and there are) because it would take too much of my time. but i hope that this single comment is at least interesting.
PWNED!
ReplyDeleteouch!
Don't apologise for being anonymous. It either suggests you think I'm a moron or you are. There are ways to a leave name even if its at the end of a comment like this. The media plays such a huge part because people believe what they hear and unless everyone has a basic education in politics and attempts to take an interest why should they have a say? They don't care until the media tell them to. I'm merely expressing my frustration that a failing political system is only failing because people are too lazy and stupid to do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteBen, I admit my view is naive and its an idealistic solution. However despite being harsh it seems the only way to reinvigorate the public and get the political system working again. If people are too uneducated to vote but want to then surely its up to them to ensure they learn. I'd like to point out by the way I have no idea how this system would work I just thought it would be a harsh but effective way of 'saving' politics.