Government of the technocrats, by the technocrats, for the technocrats

Democracy must not be regarded as merely an optional extra when solving economic problems.

Greece and Italy now have new Prime Ministers. Neither of them have had to endure the indignity of actually standing for election. New Italian PM, Mario Monti, is a former European commissioner and an economist. Lucas Papademos, the new Greek Prime Minister, is a former Governor of the Bank of Greece (there is a great irony in a central banker being imposed as Prime Minister following a debt crisis fuelled by poor central bank decisions and a collapse of the banking system).

The European debt crisis has been almost as damaging for democracy as it has been for the economies of the Eurozone. In Greece and Italy, democratic legitimacy is clearly regarded as an unaffordable luxury.

If democratically elected leaders do not satisfy the markets, the IMF and the European Commission, they are now, in effect, summarily dismissed, without any reference to the wishes of the people. The unsubtle message coming out of Greece and Brussels is that international bodies believe that democratic governments have failed to tackle the economic crisis and should be replaced with more reliable (and controllable) technocratic governments.

Rule by technocrats has replaced rule by the people - with unelected, economically orthodox international bodies like the European Commission and the IMF working with unelected technocrats now heading up national governments to implement tough austerity measures that have never received public backing. The democratic deficit at the heart of Europe has become a democratic chasm.

The events of the past week are immensely important. For the first time in a generation, European countries are now headed by individuals who have had no popular endorsement at the ballot box. It is difficult to see why the people of Greece and Italy should see their new governments as representing their wishes when they have been imposed from above.

If people no longer see their Governments as being democratically legitimate and no longer see the ballot box as a legitimate way to express their grievance, they may be more likely to consider other ways to express that grievance. This is particularly dangerous at a time of painful austerity and falling living standards. Technocracy will have no answers for growing popular discontent.

The growing power of international bodies has steadily diminished democracy. Rule by place men has gradually replaced rule by democratically elected individuals who have been elected and can be removed. To an extent, the imposition of technocrats on Italy and Greece is the apotheosis of the technocratic concept that runs through bodies such as the IMF and European Commission

Indeed, Tony Benn famously warned of this threat in a mighty speech during the Maastricht debate, pointing out that, to a democrat, a good King is never better than a bad Parliament. He said:

We are discussing whether the... people are to be allowed to elect those who make the laws under the which they are governed... Secondly, we say to my favourite friends, the Chartists and suffragettes, "All your struggles to get control of the ballot box were a waste of time. We shall be run in future by a few white persons, as in 1832."

Government of the technocrats, by the technocrats, and for the technocrats is hugely undesirable and, by its very nature, bad for democratic legitimacy. It is not a long-term solution and should not have been considered as a short-term one. Democracy must not be regarded as merely an optional extra when solving economic problems.

If politicians do not bring their people with them, they risk creating extreme alienation and discontent. If politicians do not trust the people, why should the people trust their politicians? When they are working to solve the economic crisis engulfing Europe, the continent's leaders must be very careful that they don't create a new crisis of political legitimacy, which will have even more serious long-term consequences.

David Skelton is Deputy Director on Policy Exchange, an independent think tank. You can follow him on Twitter @djskelton

David Skelton is the director of Renewal, a new campaign group aiming to broaden the appeal of the Conservative Party to working class and ethnic minority voters. @djskelton

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Today's immigration figures show why the net migration target should be scrapped

We should measure different types of migration separately and set targets that reflect their true impact.

Today’s net migration figures show, once again, that the government has raised expectations of tackling migration and failed to deliver. This is a recipe for disaster. Today’s numbers run far in excess of 300,000 – three times over what was pledged. These figures don’t yet reflect the fallout from Brexit. But they do show the government needs to change from business as usual.

It has been the current strategy, after all, that led the British public to reject the European Union regardless of the economic risks. And in the process, it is leading the government to do things which err on the side of madness. Like kicking out international students with degrees in IT, engineering or as soon as they finish their degrees. Or doubling the threshold for investor visas, and in the process bringing down the number of people willing to come to Britain to set up business and create jobs by 82 per cent. Moreover, it has hampered the UK’s ability to step up during last year’s refugee crisis - last year Britain received 60 asylum applications per 1,000 people in contrast to Sweden’s 1,667, Germany’s 587 and an EU average of 260.

The EU referendum should mark the end for business as usual. The aim should be to transition to a system whose success is gauged not on the crude basis of whether overall migration comes down, irrespective of the repercussions, but on the basis of whether those who are coming are helping Britain achieve its strategic objectives. So if there is evidence that certain forms of migration are impacting on the wages of the low paid then it is perfectly legitimate for government to put in place controls. Conversely, where flows help build prosperity, then seeing greater numbers should surely be an option.

Approaching immigration policy in this way would go with the grain of public opinion. The evidence clearly tells us that the public holds diverse views on different types of migration. Very few people are concerned about investors coming from abroad to set up companies, create jobs and growth. Few are worried about students paying to study at British universities. On the other hand, low-skilled migration causes concerns of under-cutting among the low paid and pressure on public services in parts of the country that are already struggling.

The first step in a new approach to managing migration has to be to abolish the net migration target. Rather than looking at migration in the aggregate, the aim should be to measure different types of migration separately and set targets that reflect their true impact. In the first instance, this could be as simple as separating low and high skilled migration but in the long term it could involve looking at all different forms of migration. A more ambitious strategy would be to separate the different types of migration - not just those coming to work but also those arriving as refugees, to study or be reunited with their families.

Dividing different flows would not only create space for an immigration policy which was strategic. It would also enable a better national conversation, one which could take full account of the complex trade-offs involved in immigration policy: How do we attract talent to the UK without also letting conditions for British workers suffer? Should the right to a family life override concerns about poor integration? How do we avoiding choking off employers who struggle to recruit nationally? Ultimately, are we prepared to pay those costs?

Immigration is a tough issue for politicians. It involves huge trade-offs. But the net migration target obscures this fact. Separating out different types of immigration allows the government to sell the benefits of welcoming students, the highly skilled and those who wish to invest without having to tell those concerned about low skilled immigration that they are wrong.

Getting rid of the net migration target is politically possible but only if it is done alongside new and better targets for different areas of inward migration – particularly the low-skilled. If it is, then not only does it allow for better targeted policy that will help appease those most vocally against immigration, it also allows for a better national conversation. Now is the time for a new, honest and better approach to how we reduce immigration.

Phoebe Griffith is Associate Director for Migration, Integration and Communities at IPPR