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]
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 rĂ´le 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
[4] For more information check The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gallery/2010/mar/30/general-election-2010-labour#/?picture=360986367&index=7
[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.
Comments
Post a Comment