Labels
Posted by

Democracy

What is a democracy?
I watch the news, a lot: CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, France 24, Russia Today... I read newspapers, a lot: Financial Times, The independent, The guardian, Die Zeit, Le Monde, Le Figaro… I try to understand British politics from both points of view, as a foreigner and as an adopted Brit.  And something bugs me. Being French and having this legacy of the French Revolution[1], “Etat-Providence” , Socialism[2] (not to be confused with communism) and other human rights historical events I thought I knew what the role of a government should be. I thought I knew the meaning of democracy. Then I came to England and saw that people were complaining quietly, strikes were rare occurrences, street demonstrations even rarer. I saw the government taking unilateral decisions without consulting its people, I saw the government ignoring deliberately the protest of its people. So it got me thinking. What is the role of a government? What is democracy? I started taking a deeper look at my own country in the light of what I was seeing here in England and realised that everything I thought I knew got somehow shattered. So I asked myself have our leaders have lost sight of their role in the society? Again what is a democracy? Has David Cameron forgotten the meaning of the word democracy? I could ask Monsieur Sarkozy the exact same question, but this would be for another article.
A state ruled or governed by only a few individuals leaving the majority of the population out of the decision process
It seems that Cameron’s definition of democracy is: “A state ruled or governed by only a few individuals or a small group leaving the majority of the population out of the decision process.” This sounds pretty much like the definition of an oligarchy[3] to me. Oligarchy:  “A state governed by a few persons, a small clique of private citizens who exert a strong influence on government, a system of rule by a few persons”.  The past cople of years David Cameron and his government have taken unilateral decisions even when the citizens have clearly expressed their opposition. I am not disputing M. Cameron’s proclaimed intentions to be working to help the nation move forward, I am questioning his methodology. My concerns started during the 2010 general election campaign.  How can you trust a political party that ridicules its opponent on posters as a strategy to win elections? I trust a political party that attack its opponent with ideas in a fare square debate.  I trust a political which ideas are so good that doesn’t need to do that[4]:
Photo Credits: Guardian,April 15th 2010, Andrew Panson

Power to the people
My definition of democracy is a system ruled by the people of that system. In the context of a nation it therefore means that the people, the citizens of a nation should be not only at the centre of the decision-making process but more importantly at the centre of the leaders’ preoccupations. By this I mean that in every decision made by the leaders democratically chosen by the citizens to represent them, the focus should be the people. The citizen put their trust in the leaders they elect, they trust that they will remember they were chosen to represent and work for the majority of the nation and not for themselves.  
Putting the people back in the centre of political preoccupations
I personally believe that Government representatives should be asking themselves the following questions when making political decisions: How the decisions we are making are going to affect and/or help our citizens? Are the new laws we are working on only benefiting a mere 5% of the population and in which case should we revise the project?
How often our elected representatives ask themselves these questions when making decisions that affect all of us? I was reading the Financial Times last weekend (FT Weekend 31st March/1st of April 2012), the almost pamphleteery[5] article in second page is dedicated in satirizing David Cameron’s past few weeks political blunders. The article describes how David Cameron the candidate chosen for his ability to speak “plain-english” and therefore is seen as the one to whom citizens can relate to, may be “out of touch” with “ordinary voters.” What I couldn’t help noticing is how Kiran Stacey FT Political Correspondent focused so much on the consequences of David Cameron’s Gaffe on his image and not on how Cameron’s political faux-pas impact the Brits. It appears that the citizens are not at centre of the political preoccupations even in the media but political leaders themselves are.
I am not usually much of a "dust-up" kind of person and I don’t really want to start a dust-up with David Cameron, although…. the more I read the news, watch the news and hear the news, the more I feel this need to scream, to shout, to tell M. Cameron don’t you hear your people grumbling? Don’t you see your people’s uproar; don’t you hear your people’s cries?

Through his political actions and decisions has David Cameron demonstrated some evidence that he may have forgotten the definition of the word democracy?

David Cameron’s actions
As it is not possible in a one-page article to dissect and analyse every action and decision taken by David Cameron and his peers, I have chosen to focus on one main decision that reflects the way the government creates an ever-deeper edge between the citizen and its government by making unilateral decisions, that is to say the rise of university fees. However I could have used pretty much any other examples such as the way the government has dealt with the riots last year and how they failed to understand the reasons behind the revolt, or the although necessary budget cuts being made without truly understanding what civil workers go through already. I am not even going to mention the misuse of public funds/abuse of public asset by David Cameron, maybe in another article.
Let’s focus on the matter at hand the University Fees increase or as the government calls it the Graduate Contribution Scheme

One of the first major decisions that new coalition took in 2010 was to enable universities in England to raise their tuition fees to up to £9000. As much as M. Cameron tried to convince us that the system was fair, or fairer the consequences of the “graduate contribution scheme was rejected by the main interested parties, students and even some universities. In this case students and other groups tried to tell M. Cameron that they didn’t believe that the reform would work and how strongly they felt against it. He didn’t listen! So students went down to the streets and demonstrated. He didn’t listen! Some students out of anger and frustration from not being heard became violent, vandalised and broke into the conservative party headquarters. He still didn’t listen! In his speech on Higher Education Funding, made on 8th December David Cameron tried to reassure:

“So we will lift the current £3,290 a year cap on tuition fees to a basic threshold of £6,000.
In exceptional circumstances, some universities will be allowed to charge £9,000.”[6]
Great promises! However 2 years later at the dawn of the start of the new system we notice that most universities are charging the maximum £9000.  84 out of the 130 universities are in fact charging up to £9000 with most charging up to 8500. The government once again had failed to anticipate what most protesters told them would happen.  In the current context not only students are losing out but the government which initiated the reform because of the shortage of public monies will find itself struggling to advance the extra cash needed to pay the now very expensive university fees.
“So this is a solution that is fair on the taxpayer in a time of financial anxiety. It's fair on the student, who will get better teaching. And it's fair on the graduate, who will pay when they can afford it.”[7]
The problem with all these beautiful claims is we don’t know how universities will use the extra cash. We don’t have much tangible proves that students are really going to get better teaching and better resources. Furthermore the government failed to see that many institutions in other countries actually offer better teachings at a much more competitive price even free. How is the government going to retain its students, even notoriously expensive American Ivy League universities work out more affordable for UK students with the back up of a wide array of financial support.  What the reform is in fact doing is make it even harder for students from poorer background to access higher education. In fact by allowing universities to take on unlimited AAB and above students it limits the accessibility of students of poorer background as studies show that these students often have lower grades.  Here goes social mobility. The reform will increase public spending s in the short to middle term so the initial announced reason for the reform will not be achieved. The reform also opens the gates outwards for British students who are now pushed to think creatively to find better studying options. These students often find them abroad.
Finally what I find the most dangerous is the fact that David Cameron believes that the reason it is a good idea and it is fair to raise university fees is that students should contribute towards their education. This statement is so misleading that it makes me cringe. On the Fact On Fees[8] website the government responds to “myth 5”: Tuition fees aren’t fair by stating as a fact that:
“Graduates earn, on average, at least £100,000 more over their lifetimes than non-graduates, so it’s fair that you contribute towards your education.”
 The true benefit is for the government clearly expressed in the “Independent Review of Higher Education Funding & Student Finance »[9] « Less involved, less regulation » However isn’t it the rôle of the government to be involved in the education of its children? isn’t the role of the government to provide education? I guess this a question for another debate.

David Cameron in his investiture speech said: “I came into politics because I love this country. I think its best days still lie ahead and I believe deeply in public service.” Does he really believe in public service or does he believe in public providing and financing their services themselves? Does he believe in public service or does he disengage the government from its own responsibility? Will we tomorrow pay to use motorways privately owned? Will tomorrow’s school be products subject to the law of the market and people who can’t afford it simply won’t access it? Will tomorrow’s hospital be all privately owned because the government will stop funding health in the name of public cuts? Will tomorrow’s universities be also all privately owned because the government believe that students should pay for their own education and that Higher Education Institutions should be more in control?
David Cameron in the same speech however clearly stated: “One of the tasks that we clearly have is to rebuild trust in our political system. Yes that's about cleaning up expenses, yes that is about reforming parliament, and yes it is about making sure people are in control - and that the politicians are always their servant and never their masters.” Is that a contradiction?

Conclusion
Yes I ask a lot of questions that will stay without answers. However if there is one thing I believe in is that the people still and should have the power, the power to change status quo, the power to remind our leaders that the focus of political preoccupations is the people and that a democracy is a society where the people are in control.
What really saddens me is that after many situations where Cameron was proven wrong and he will stall take unilateral decisions without taking its citizens into consideration; Hot Take Away Tax protesters have promise to petition. Is this going to make a difference? Is M. Cameron going to listen?  As much as I doubt it, I really hope that one day M. Cameron will realise that the role of the government is to govern a nation and provide services to its people to allow them to thrive and to remember as of its own words “(…) that the politicians are always their servant and never their masters”
But tell me something M. Cameron, wouldn’t you consider the remote possibility that sometimes, just sometimes and by asking this question I address to you directly Sir, the people that you serve may discern better what is best for them or do you deeply utterly believe that British citizen are not equipped enough to make decisions about their own fate?  If so, whose fault is it?

[1] For more information on the French Revolution check these links: Georges Mason University, http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/ Britannia, http://www.britannia.com/history/euro/1/2_2.html or the Free resources of the OpenUniversity, http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1515
[2] Social movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
[3] Disclaimer: By using the word oligarchy I don’t imply  “for corrupt and selfish purposes” as stated in the Merriam Webster Dictionary
[5] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
[9] For more information about eh Browne review visit the Business & Innovation Skilss website http://www.bis.gov.uk/studentfinance/

--------------------------------------
NB: This piece was written April 6th 2012. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts