Politics: democracy in crisis

By Richard North - July 14, 2022

Every now and again, a group or individual pops up to decry the parlous state of our democracy, usually offering a bundle of rather predictable remedies. One of the most recent is the Guardian’s John Harris.

In the wake of Johnson’s pseudo-resignation, he offers his version of the package headed: “The lesson from Johnson’s tenure – British politics needs dragging into the 21st century”.

“The UK’s creaking democracy”, Harris tells us, “is in crisis”, and then turns to a plan now being advocated by, among others, the Greater Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham. Its starting point, he writes, would be Labour working with other progressive parties to bring in proportional representation, abolish the Lords and pursue unprecedented devolution.

Scarcely any of the proposals to “improve” our democracy seem to miss out on the opportunity of rejigging the electoral system – the modern-day version of shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic – while contemporary ideas of “devolution” always seem to involve creating more layers of politicians who then assume more power to regulate our affairs.

And yet, we’ve been there before. On 14 July 2012, exactly ten years ago, myself and an invited group of 33 other activists assembled at the Old Swan Hotel in Harrogate, the same hotel in which Agatha Christie re-appeared after she had gone missing in December 1926.

Our object was to found a reform movement aimed at making our government democratic, choosing to act in the manner of the Chartists who in 1838 framed six demands which became known as the “People’s Charter”.

Although five of the Chartists’ demands were eventually conceded, their work was not done. The political system, although improved, is still very far from being democratic. Thus, we sought to continue their work with another six demands, which we intend to focus minds on the necessary changes.

Originally conceived as The Old Swan Manifesto, we eventually settled on the title “The Harrogate Agenda” (THA) as a framework for our demands, which were set out and explained in a short pamphlet, published in print and available on-line.

At the original meeting, as there is now, there was a great deal of attention paid to reform of the electoral system, but it had to be acknowledged that, even if it was changed, all we would achieve would be a different method of picking our representatives, without conferring democracy to the system.

This is because democracy stems from the Greek word, dēmokratía, comprising two parts: demos “people” and kratos “power”. Without a demos there is no democracy. But if the people are without power, there cannot be a democracy either.

And there lies the essential futility of concentrating on reforming the way we vote. Our current system of government is styled as a “representative democracy”. But this is a misuse of the word democracy. The power is held by our representatives, not the people. And as long as people do not hold the power, our system cannot rightly be called a democracy.

Back in 2012 we gave a great deal of thought to the nature of political power and how people could take a greater share of it. And it was our own history as a nation which yields the clue. At the heart of any government’s power is money. That is how parliament emerged as a force in the land, going as far back as 1215 when the tenants-in chief secured the first draft of the Magna Carta from King John.

The concession that more than anything else reduced the power of the monarchy was the principle that kings were no longer entitled to levy or collect any taxes (except the feudal taxes to which they were hitherto accustomed), save with the consent of his royal council. He who controls the money controls the Monarch and the power assumed by parliament to control the King’s finances paved the way for a real transfer of power.

The principle of financial control survives to this day. In place of the Monarch, the executive must refer to parliament each year for approval of its budget. Without that, it runs out of money.

Our problem – and the nub of all our problems – is that this process has become a ritual. No parliament has rejected a budget in living memory, and none is likely to do so. Each year we see the government of the day going through the routine of asking parliament for money, and we have to watch the charade of approval being given – only then to see vast amounts being spent on things of which the majority of us do not approve.

For the people to hold real power, therefore, they must have the ultimate control over the government’s finances. The politicians cannot be trusted on this – it is not their money. The power must go to the people who pay the bills – us.

Thus, we decided, every annual budget must be submitted to the people for approval, by means of a referendum. The politicians must put their arguments, and the people must agree, before any government can levy any tax or spend any money in the relevant period. We, the people, decide. We, the people, must have the power to say no.

With six demands, though, we remain flexible as to the order of implementation and the priority given to them. With the charade of the Conservative Party leadership contest in progress – that will end in an appointed prime minister – our third demand takes a high profile with the requirement that prime ministers should be elected by the vote of the entire electorate.

Never again should we see a situation where the leader of our government is selected by a minority caucus and imposed on us without us having a say.

This, however, begets more fundamental change which goes to the heart of the current system failures where parliament no longer functions as a check on the power of the executive. Thus, along with an elected prime minister, we need a proper separation of powers: the executive must be separated from the legislature.

The point about this demand, though, as with the power to veto annual budgets, is that it is one of six. The six are to be taken together as a whole, each complementing and reinforcing each other.

That includes the demand for a constitutional convention to draw up a definitive codified constitution for the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is a much-needed reform, which would serve to define the powers and responsibilities of the executive, as well as the people who must ultimately control the governments in all their forms, local and national.

So far, ten years down the line, largely through the good offices of Niall Warry, we have kept the flame of the Harrogate Agenda alive. It may be low profile as we have deliberately not sought legacy media exposure, but we are still here.

We agreed to put campaigning on hold during the EU referendum but now that Brexit is more or less established and the need for improving our system of government becomes more urgent, it is time to reactivate our campaign and take the next steps towards pursuing our demands.

Accordingly, on 5 November – an auspicious day – we are planning to hold a national meeting in London at the Victory Services Club (pictured), near Marble Arch. The meeting will start at 10am and finish at 5pm, at the end of which we hope we will have a better idea of what our next moves should be.

Coffee, lunch and tea will be provided and, to cover these and the venue costs, there will be a charge of £50 per head. Democracy has its price.

The room has space for a maximum of 100 people, although a smaller number would probably be more manageable – and the discussion more productive. Blog readers especially are welcome and to reserve a place, contact Niall Warry by e-mail using this link or directly via [email protected].

From small beginnings, many a movement has grown and by the time we meet, we will have had imposed on us a new prime minister who will be beyond democratic control. There has never been a better time to pursue our aims, and never have they been more necessary.