Democratic reform: Poll results

Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve been running a survey to determine support for a variety of political reforms.

The results are shown in the graph and table below. The scores for each proposed reform were computed by awarding 2 points for each vote of ‘strongly agree’, 1 point for ‘agree’, no points for ‘ambivalent’, -1 point for ‘disagree’ and -2 points for ‘strongly disagree’. These scores were then turned into percentages from -100% (everyone ‘strongly disagrees’) to +100% (everyone ‘strongly agrees’) by dividing by the maximum possible score (since 110 votes were cast, this was +/- 220 points).

Surprisingly, every reform had more supporters than opponents, and most had significant support. The need for a code of conduct for MPs was considered the most pressing reform, followed by a recall mechanism to allow the public to eject a dishonest or incompetent MP before the end of their term. Next came a call for more conscience votes, greater use of bipartisan committees and referenda, and fixed term elections. The idea that Cabinet collective responsibility should be scrapped attracted less support, while opinion was fairly evenly split on having Opposition MPs in Cabinet.

The UBP recently pledged its support for all of these reforms except the abolition of collective responsibility. The PLP, however, has remained silent. It's time for them to speak up.

	Strngly Agree	Agree	Ambiv	Disagr.	Strngly Disagr.	Score
Code of conduct for MPs	95	10	3	2	0	198
Recall mechanism	82	18	6	4	0	178
More conscience votes	66	30	12	2	0	160
More bipartisan cttes	64	32	11	3	0	157
Greater use of referenda	63	34	7	6	0	154
Fixed term elections	67	26	10	7	0	153
Scrap collective resp.	41	31	16	18	4	87
Opposition MPs in Cabinet	20	26	32	28	4	30

110 votes cast

Comments

[Denis Pitcher on 30.03.06 at 12:08]

Are there any people out there who would be kind enough to donate to hiring Research Innovations into conducting this poll independently?

[J Starling on 18.05.06 at 21:41]

This is a reply to Ali from the thread ‘Dragiing its FOIt.’ I have put it here as it does not directly concern that thread. Ali asked me to explain what I meant by the term Westminster hypocrisy. I think it is better in this thread.

The very structure of the Westminster political system is devised in such a way that government through the people is not government by the people. Parliamentary democracy is only partial, not complete democracy. Only one day in four or five years the people have power over the delegates; and on election day advertising, abundant and constant propaganda, old slogans and new promises all combine to overwhelm the possibility of critical judgment. Voters are not to designate a spokesman of their own – candidates are presented and recommended from parties, selected by the party caucuses; every vote to an outsider is known to be practically thrown away. Even elected delelgates from the mass parties, the parties of labour, once elected become consumed by the political game itself, and become like all other politicians, constituting almost an independent power over the people. Even these delegates do not have full power. Next to them we have unelected senators, powerful civil servants and, in our case, the Governor and ultimately 10 Downing Street and the Queen, for whom consent or at least cooperation is necessary for the laws. Many of these come from aristocratic type circles, disconnected from the mass concerns, and heavily influenced by ‘special interests.’ Through the separation of the legislative and executive parts of government even these delegates do not govern, they can merely influence through criticism and withholding of monies. The notion that in democracy the people choose their rulers, is not even truly realized in the context of Westminster democracy. All that we have is the illusion that the masses determine their own fate – thus the hypocrisy of the Westminster notion of democracy. In its place must be erected a worker’s democracy based on local parish councils and workers councils – a system of peoples assemblies. The objective of these assemblies must not be to make new political masters to replace the old – rather it must be for the people to organize themselves in their communities and their workplaces and create a system where they, the people not simply control the government, but become the government. Delegates must be bound by a code of ethics agreed on, by consensus. Delegates must be subject to immediate recall. This is the system that must replace the hypocrisy of the Westminster system, and realize a more real, a higher level of democracy than this current democracy in name only.

[Zoom on 18.05.06 at 21:47]

"In its place must be erected a worker’s democracy based on local parish councils and workers councils – a system of peoples assemblies."

All very quaint. So, you'd allow expats to participate in the rule of this worker's paradise?

Oh goody: catfight!

[J Starling on 18.05.06 at 21:51]

All who work, who contribute to production and the welfare of our people and nation should have the right to participate in the governance of production and society as a whole. Parasites who only siphon off the work of others have no right to participate. They can stay here and enjoy the beach for all I care, but if they don't contribute, they should not participate.

[observor on 19.05.06 at 08:55]

but if they don't contribute, they should not participate ... well ... we better start with firing a large number our MPs as they seem to spend more time out of the House than in and when actually there contribute very little to our collective betterment preferring instead to concentrate on themselves.

[J Starling on 19.05.06 at 12:00]

Observor, I agree. Similarly I doubt that Parliament and the politicians who benefit from the Westminster system are simply going to relinquish their power simply because there is a better system. It is up to the people, in their parishes, in their work places, to form the parish and workers councils, thus setting up a system of dual power. This is easier in a time of crisis when the government is failing to govern, say in the event of a general strike or natural disaster. The intent may not be to challenge the centralisation of power, only to manage the welfare of production and society temporarily, but once people see that they themselves can govern, and better even, than the Westminster system, they will resist surrending thier truly participatory democracy to the Westminster hypocrites. The growth of grassroots democracy must be organic, that is bottom-up from the people. Political groups can advocate the council system, but it cannot be forced on the people - the people must understand the system, grow confident in their own powers. It will take time. But the very fact that we are discussing it now shows that the hegemony of the current Westminster system is weakening, and that people are now looking for better and necessary alternatives.