Too Much Democracy

Is there anything more irritating than the unctuous politician who claims with mock piety that he wants to put 'power in the hands of the people'? He only says this because he thinks his side will get a majority of the votes; I can think of no one who has advocated for a general election or referendum in which he suspects he will lose. Isn't it odd how democratic principles seemingly disappear when there is little or nothing to gain?

I am, of course, chiefly referring to the campaign for a 'People's Vote'. But the above equally applies to the 2016 referendum. That too was called in the name of 'giving people a say', but everyone knew it was intended as a way to strengthen the Conservative Party under Cameron and the modernisers. 

Herein lies one of the great dangers of this fake democracy-worship: in an otherwise free society, with a secret ballot, it can backfire horribly. Those who were readying themselves for more power, and for implementing a decision they thought inevitable, are in the course of one night defeated and dethroned, and soon they and their side suffer an onset of confusion, fear and even a touch of madness.

There is nothing to stop this happening again. This is why the 'People's Vote' campaign are playing a very dangerous game indeed: they are betting the nation's future on the hope that the people will vote for their side. I'm not sure they will. And if Leave again win, all that will have been achieved would be an entrenchment of our current crisis. Remainers will have spent a good year (perhaps longer? I long ago lost track of it all) pursuing a solution that turned out to worsen the problem.

It's a stupid gamble. Even if they win, they will have doubled the constitutional crisis by having two conflicting democratic mandates separated by only three years, and they will have doubled the resentments and fears and sentiments of those who voted to leave. 

I can very well see a Trump-like figure emerging in Britain. We may have proven resistant to such populism in the past but we are by no means immune. After all, we are an entirely different nation now. We view our prime ministers like presidents and our royal family like celebrities. We are no longer so appalled by vulgarity, nor do we take such pride in dignity. There is no modern equivalent of gentlemen and gentlewomen; the idea of being 'genteel' has become a source of ridicule. Modesty, prudence, temperance -- these are hardly fashionable qualities. Our culture is increasingly coarse, and so our politics will follow.

Democracy is never as attractive as it is imagined to be. If you make it the central feature of your country it will ruin it. The greatest features of the English system are, or at least were, the monarchy, its liberties (which were not acquired democratically; nothing is more wrong than the idea that democracy begets freedom), its parliament (which was not, in better days, that democratic, and to some extent still isn't), and its religion. All come with caveats; every system is bad in many ways and they will always be so. 

But democracy has only recently become a core feature of the British system. And universal suffrage is a very modern experiment, one I'm not sure has worked out too well. I cannot understand why the left aren't now understanding this too. Right-wing populists are thriving in modern democracies, as they have since -- and yes, it was inevitable that I would mention it -- National Socialism in Weimar Germany. (Not that Fidesz or PiS are much like the National Socialists, of course.) And referenda, let us remember, were a vital way in which both National Socialists and Fascists consolidated their power. Both were modern movements that used modern means to gain absolute power.

Populism, contrary to what many say, is not a threat to democracy -- it is democracy.

So let's stop looking to democracy to solve every problem. I wish MPs would just act on the nation's behalf using the insight and education and experience they are supposed to have. At any rate, a sorry lot though they are, they are easily more competent than the general public in matters of governance. And even if they weren't, I would rather be governed by 650 fools than 46 million. It is healthy for a country to seek to contain the political process.