April 2024

UPDATE: 16 April. The Humanists are planning a rally on 29th April concerning assisted dying, the second topic discussed last Saturday.

A good attendance for two interesting and lively debates. Looking at my notes, I think this will be a long post if I am to cover all the interesting points made. The first topic was Is democracy inherently unstable? The question was posed following recent events in countries which are nominally democracies but where autocrats have been voted in, Poland was given as an instance. There was also a rise in populism and the far right. Other factors included people feeling entitled (to hold power was the sense I think) and the rise of social media.

The first fundamental point to be made was that empires were ‘stable’. Those who had power ensured they kept it and that meant change was restricted. Democracy allowed differing views which inevitably led to instability – was this a bad thing? Democracy was a good thing it was noted if people who got in were those we agreed with. What about when fascists and populists won power? People weren’t so keen on democracy then. One speaker was pessimistic about the future which he thought more Hobbesian citing the events in America by Trump and his supporters on Capitol hill. The point was made that Arab countries had ‘stable government’ but the Arab Spring showed that it masked deep problems i.e. stability did not necessarily deliver good government.

Another argument was that nations went through cycles so sometimes things worked and sometimes they did not work so well.

An interesting point about psychology was made concerning choice. A survey (it was claimed) showed that 30% were comfortable with a single system and the presence of too much choice (of candidates and policies) was too much to take in. People became confused.

Another key point was that when economies are improving and the overall wellbeing of the nation is getting better, democracy is accepted. Once the ‘good times’ are over – a situation we are arguably in today – then people become dissatisfied with the political system. The period of prosperity was largely dependent on the developed world’s extraction from the less developed world of raw materials and resources. They will probably be unhappy with any system in these present day circumstances.

It was suggested democracy was under threat internationally and that freedom has been reduced globally speaking. The lack of strong democratic input was why the Salisbury Democracy Alliance was promoting citizen’s juries precisely to improve both the quality of decision making and getting more people involved in how decisions are made.

There was a shift in the argument with the assertion that people wanted to come to the UK because of our democratic institutions. This assertion did not meet universal agreement and most felt people came for the opportunities, jobs and so forth. They had little concern for democracy (they would not be able to vote in any event).

The tone of the discussion changed at this point and we began to discuss the process itself and the MPs who are running it. Was it the democratic process which was important or the quality of decisions said one? Someone with US experience spoke of the rigidity of a constitution which is extremely difficult to change as times and circumstances change. The UK does not have a constitution and relies on decent behaviour by decent men – the ‘good chaps’ theory of government. The influence of public schools was mentioned – a subject of Simon Kuper’s book Chums which discusses the undue and malign influence of a narrow coterie of Eton and Oxford men

Although it was true that we can ‘get the scoundrels out’ as Rush Limbaugh almost said it was noted that, although we have a choice at election, once a government is formed, that was it as far as the public having a say over affairs was concerned. Quintin Hogg’s ‘elective dictatorship’ was mentioned which was another reason SDA was keen on citizen’s assemblies. The curtailment of protest and dissent was great concern. Recent acts of parliament were designed to make protest harder and police now had enhanced powers to arrest protestors for a wide variety of infringements. Access to judicial review has also been curtailed.

The recent issue of legal advice to government concerning arms sales to Israel was mentioned. Why was this not published?

A positive note was struck concerning the select committee system which was working well. It was an opportunity for MPs to interrogate policy decisions and, now that the whips no longer appointed committee members, they had become assertive in questioning the executive. Members left their politics at the door and there was secret voting. In this vein it was noted that most MPs went in to politics with the best of intentions but quickly became lobby fodder as described in Isabel Hardman’s book Why we Get the Wrong Politicians. Was there a perception problem in fact? that is, a belief that politicians can’t be trusted which was not in fact fair nor accurate.

Why are so many angry at the current situation someone asked? We are more critical of those in authority now perhaps spurred on by mainstream and social media. Deference of yesteryear has now gone. The threats and personal abuse MPs now endure was unacceptable we all felt. Polarised views and division was generating this anger it was thought.

An interesting debate where we explored the system of democracy and how it works in practice. The point that however perfect a system might be, it ultimately depended on the honesty, competence and integrity of those who occupied it. A conclusion reached was that instability per se was not necessarily a bad thing if stability meant oppression or the stifling of opposing views. One said that democracy has to be unstable if freedom of expression is to be allowed.

The second debate was around assisted dying: Should MPs be allowed to decide if assisted dying is the right thing for the country? This concerned the bill being promoted by Esther Rantzen. The introducer – who is a hospital chaplain – was worried that orders might be signed for the wrong reason. Her particular concern was those people with disabilities. Concern was expressed about giving MPs the choice citing their stewardship of prisons as an example.

It was first pointed out that we had to distinguish between euthanasia and assisted dying – they were quite different. A second point quickly made was that this was not a minority issue since all of us will die – with taxes being the two certainties of life. The importance of having power of attorney organised was stressed. Another key point was that it is no longer illegal to takes one’s own life. Choosing your own death was in a sense a natural progression. The key issue was involving someone else in that decision.

Several mentioned the DNR, (do not resuscitate) notices in people’s homes and which used to be on hospital beds. It was claimed that medical staff ignore these as they are not allowed to withhold medical assistance. Doctors are under an obligation to prolong life.

Since we were talking about MPs deciding this, it was noted that MPs have already decided since it was the law at present. We were in effect talking about changing the law.

Someone of mature years, shall I say, came up with the quote of the day – “If I wake in the morning, I think, it’s another day”. We should accept life as it is he said.

But back to the basic question of whether MPs should decide issues of an ethical nature such as this. An echo of our first discussion, MPs have to be involved since it is they who change the law. As we have noted, the law had to be changed to allow this to happen.

One worry was that could be have another Brexit? Could we see the same level of lack of information and disinformation that we saw in the debate about leaving the EU? Most thought not. Essentially, there was no push for a particular answer and the issues were already being widely aired, the opposite of the Brexit debate.

It was pointed out in MP’s favour that they had wide access to expertise and the House of Commons Library which should help both to be informed and come to a reasonable conclusion. It was also noted that other laws which had a moral component – one thinks of homosexuality, the death penalty and same sex marriages – had been changed. In MP’s favour, we were reminded that they were often ahead of public opinion, the death penalty was mentioned.

Another aspect was that we were living longer now and in effect, the medical profession had ”hijacked’ old age’. Medical intervention meant people lived on sometimes with poor quality of life whereas in times gone by they would have met their maker. Death was now a medical decision it was said.

Taking the decision away from the professionals was a concern however and the problem of the ‘slippery slope’ that is, elderly people in hospital feeling unwanted and a burden. They would feel under a kind of obligation to end their lives because of these feelings. On the other hand it was noted that both Switzerland and the Netherlands had forms of assisted dying yet there did not seem to be a string of scandals or the ‘bumping off of relatives’ as it was expressed.

There was a feeling, expressed by several during the debate, that people should have the choice. Those suffering from motor neuron disease was given as an example.

A surprising omission in the debate was that religion and religious views did not get an airing.

These were two fascinating debates and both turned in different ways on our trust of the political class. This loss of trust is clearly a problem since major aspects of our lives depend on the decisions they make. The way members of parliament are chosen, as discussed in Rory Stewart’s book Politics on the Edge for example was depressing. How MPs are treated once elected is also unsatisfactory as described in Isabel Hardman’s book. Should you wish to get further depressed then Ian Dunt’s book How Westminster Works and Why it Doesn’t might finish you off completely. All three books point to a thoroughly dysfunctional system of selection, appointment and treatment of a group of people who are crucial to the decision making of our country. Whichever party gets to form a government, if the system itself is creaking, good results cannot be expected. Allowing such people to decide on life or death is clearly a worry for many.

Peter Curbishley

Books mentioned:

Isabel Hardman, Why we Get the Wrong Politicians, 2019, Atlantic Books

Ian Dunt, How Westminster Works … and Why it Doesn’t, 2023, Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Simon Kuper, Chums, How a Tiny Caste of Oxford Tories Took Over the UK, 2023, Profile Books