I generally dislike the airy way cynicism is worn like a badge of pride around political conversations. When people say “that’s a typical politician’s answer”, the phrase ‘you get the politicians you deserve’ springs to mind.
But in recent years, politicians seem to have jumped the fence. Instead of sticking to their story – that their job is to deliberate and act in the public interest – the vast majority appear to be happy to temporarily adopt the line that they are there to do whatever the public want them to do.
So in 2008, the previous Labour government announced an obligation on local authorities to encourage local petitions coupled with an obligation to respond to them in a clearly defined way.
Now, there’s a more precise way of interpreting that, but seeing as few local authorities know what it is, and seeing as I heard a rumour somewhere that the Coalition has modified this obligation (or something), I really can’t be bothered to look any further.
Where I live, there is a huge local push to get thousands of names on a petition to change the local parking policy. Aside from the mobilisation potential, it’s a futile exercise. The Council already know just how many people detest the local parking scheme – they don’t need a petition to tell them this.
At a recent public meeting I watched the Council leader, beetroot-faced, being forced to stand in front of a room full of angry local traders with only one line of response: that there was no way the council were going to change any significant part of their parking policy unless a judge forced them to. The budget was set, and that’s that.
Similarly, the Coalition announced some obligation on Parliament to make time for a debate if 100,000 signatures told them to do so. Or, more accurately, this is what the media reported them as doing. The truth is more fuzzy and equally boring and irrelevant, because Parliament can ignore this obligation if it chooses to, as it did recently with 38 Degrees’ petition.
It’s all such a load of rubbish, isn’t it? It’s a downward spiral:
- You sense that the public have a lack of faith in Representative Democracy
- You introduce a process that allows people to have more of a say in Representative Democracy
- The public use it to demand something that elected representatives are not prepared or able to deliver on
- The petition is spiked, or paid lip-service to (i.e. perfunctory debate, status quo-ante retained)
- Quick assessment to see if this has improved or damaged the reputation of Representative Democracy
The offer of a petition is a typical politicians answer. It should be treated with contempt.
And who knew this could happen, as well….?
