The nature of our democracy

The revelations emerging from the Covid enquiry pose deep questions about how we are governed.

November 2023

Many of our debates at the Democracy Café discussions have focused in one way or another, on democracy and how it might work better. We have debated the first past the post system, proportional representation and whether we need a constitution. Locally, we have discussed Citizens’ Juries and we have tried our best to interest the local powers that be in using this technique to achieve a better standard of decision making.

However, we are currently witnessing the Covid inquiry take place and although it is a long way from completion and we are unlikely to see the final report before 2026, the early evidence has been profoundly disquieting. The foul and abusive language used in communications, the lack of any kind of planning before – or it seems during – the pandemic, the disorganisation, the shameful misogyny, and a prime minister who was frequently absent, disengaged, or flipflopped all over the place when he was there. The unelected Carrie Johnson appeared to be a key influence. A picture in sum – and added to each day – of confusion and chaos at the heart of government. It seems almost no one behaved in a competent fashion or looked anywhere near being on top of their briefs. And all through lockdown, they were busy partying and consuming large quantities of alcohol, ignoring all the rules they themselves had introduced.

Many of the key players however – MPs and ministers – were voted for by millions. Boris Johnson is still admired by many and despite his pitiful performance as prime minister and who should by rights quietly disappear into the country, is instead raking in vast sums from a column in the Daily Mail, is about to go on GB News with another vast fee, and is earning huge fees on the speaker circuit.

There seems to be a gigantic gap between what people believe they are voting for and the reality of how these people behave in government. It has to be asked though, do people care? Clearly, the Daily Mail and GB News think not. The role of the public school types seems to be very evident. As Simon Kuper describes in his book Chums, the pathway of people from public school (and mainly Eton), via Oxford and thence parliament and the Cabinet, the Civil Service or a spad, means a set of narrowly educated and privileged people, with no real world experience or relevant skills is put in charge of our government. It is no wonder things are as bad as they are. Their degrees in Classics, English or PPE leaves them hopelessly at sea when faced with the shear complexity of government.

This poses a key question. Would a different system of voting or setting up a constitution make any difference? I suggest not. Ordinary people would still be voting for a dysfunctional collection of fuckwits (to use Dominic Cummings’ choice phrase) to represent them. There would be some shuffling around but the same sort of people would be put before us. As Rory Stewart describes it in his recently published book Politics on the Edge, talking with other candidates selected to stand as potential MPs: “No one felt that the party valued them for their personality, their intelligence, or their experience. Nor for their ability to make a speech, to analyse policy or the lead a country. Instead, they were prized for or their ability to protect leaflets from the rain, enter a locked apartment block using a caretakers code, partner with eighty-year-old male members and understand their need for lavatory breaks and protect their fingertips from the sprung letter box and the teeth of a silent dog” (p36). This was not unique to Stewart or just his party.

As we have said before, an MP is selected by a local committee of party people (except the LibDems) on the basis of whether they like him or her and do they agree with their views. They then, if elected and if they display sufficient loyalty, start to climb the ladder of patronage possibly becoming a minister of something they know nothing at all about before being moved again in a year or two to another ministry about which they also know nothing.

The system works – or should work – on the basis of competence, integrity and honesty none of which is evident at present. Covid is a lot like the decision to invade Iraq where it was obvious none of these factors was to the fore. As we look in dismay at the roll call of the second rate sat mumbling before Hugo Keith, the Covid inquiry’s barrister, often unable to recall key events, or confessing to having deleted key messages, we have to wonder how on earth we have a system of government so inadequate to the task. It is in fact quite scary.

Nothing less than radical change will be needed. Not just the system of government but a rethink about where ministers come from, how they are selected, trained and acquire the necessary experience to run our affairs. Can we really not do better than Nadine Dorries, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg or Gavin Williamson? Should we not have some other route to enable someone with true ability to become a minister? What we are witnessing with the Covid Inquiry should be a wake-up call to how we are governed.

Peter Curbishley

[These views are his own and not necessarily those of other members of SDA]