Politicians should remember in these scandal-ridden times that theirs is a mandatory requirement to serve us with honesty and integrity
Citizenship takes many forms and works at several levels. Obeying the law is, or is supposed to be, a requirement. Contributing to the good of society is a voluntary act. In Britain, voting - or participating more generally in the political process - has always belonged to the latter category. If some people have their way it will be upgraded to an obligation.
Voter disengagement is an axiom of modern politics. Although not unique to the UK, the problem is pronounced here. As voters went to the polls on 4 May in local elections, another record low turnout was forecast. But is this as much of a problem as pundits proclaim it to be? Indeed, is it a problem at all? If the vast majority of those eligible to vote deem that none of the parties on offer is worthy of their attention, are they not exercising a perfectly rational choice?
Not so, the political class declares in unison. Disengagement is an ailment of the poor that needs to be cured through social deeds, or it is a demonstration of decadence by those who ought to know better. Within hours of publication of a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, two senior cabinet ministers express support for its main recommendation, that attendance at the polling booth be made compulsory. By all means, you may spoil your ballot or declare "none of the above", the think-tank generously allows, but you should be fined for any failure of duty.
The IPPR paper produces some thorough research. It shows that people are less likely to vote if they are poor or young. It provides tables on gender, ethnicity, age group, educational attainment and other details. It demonstrates that where voting is mandatory - Australia and Belgium are the prime examples - greater equality is assured. Where the requirement has been rescinded, such as in the Netherlands, the gap in representation between economic groups has increased. Who on the left could gainsay any measure that reduced inequality?
It must be more than a coincidence that Liverpool Riverside, one of the poorest constituencies in the UK, also provides the lowest turnout, the argument goes on. This is a case, however, of compelling evidence leading to the wrong conclusions. The people of Riverside undoubtedly feel alienated, but they know that their votes count for virtually nothing. Labour has sent an MP to Westminster from there for as long as anyone can remember. The same can be said of certain Conservative heartlands. While reform of our voting system might not be a panacea (and some variants are more attractive than others), a refusal to change our first-past-the-post procedure will guarantee further low turnouts.
That our political system is moribund must surely be beyond debate. The question is how to reform it. Parliament, lower and upper houses, must be vested with greater powers of scrutiny; we should not, as ministers are planning, combine modernisation of the Lords with a neutering of its influence. Electoral reform must eventually come. In the meantime, minor improvements, such as providing more easily accessible places to vote, should be implemented alongside stricter checks on identity to stem the rising instances of fraud.
Ultimately, the best way to ensure greater participation in politics is for politicians to remember that it is they who have an obligation to the public rather than the other way round. They should remember in these scandal-ridden times that theirs is a mandatory requirement to serve us with honesty and integrity. Ours is a voluntary act to give them our vote. Any decision not to is a logical response to the options available. The problem lies with the politicians, not the voters.
Why we must support Bolivia
You do not need to know much history to feel un- easy at the news that Bolivia's new president, Evo Morales, has issued a decree giving his government absolute control over his country's energy resources. If you are British you might think of Muhammed Mossadeq, the man who nationalised Iran's oil industry: he was overthrown in 1953 in a coup conceived in London and Washington. It is one of many such stories, and they have tended to end unhappily. No one can complain on this occasion that they had no warning that the Bolivian government would act, or that Morales is lacking in legitimacy. The country's substantial gas reserves are an important symbol, and the need to ensure that they bring appropriate benefits to the people has long been at the heart of political debate there. This is, after all, the country that was cruelly robbed of its vast silver wealth by the Spanish in centuries past, and Morales was elected last January - by a handsome margin - with a mandate to ensure that such a crime does not happen again.
This is not a case apart, a one-off. As in those past instances, the possible implications for other poor countries with mineral resources are momentous, and they will all be watching. So what will be the reaction of the international energy industry, and of the governments attached to it? To put it bluntly, are they still in the coup business? Morales may not have chosen the most subtle path towards his declared goal, but as he sets out to secure terms acceptable to his people he deserves the support of democrats and democratic governments everywhere. And that should include our own government, which might usefully begin the work of repairing our tattered international reputation by encouraging all involved in this affair to uphold the law and resolve matters by dialogue.
Bolivia is South America's poorest country and the people who elected Morales are the poorest of the poor. It is their gas; they are entitled to name their price for it.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
