Self-confessed politics geek Gareth Hay wonders whether the word “democracy” should be due a dictionary definition update
DEMOCRACY is often described as “the rule of the majority”. In the same way as the definition of “literally” was changed in recent years to also include the exact opposite definition, dictionaries may be forced to list a contrasting definition of democracy.
Donald Trump was elected on a minority of votes, and has begun his tenure by exercising his executive power with scant regard to the views of the majority who voted against him. He has signed in more laws and executive orders than his three predecessors in their respective first 100 days of office, with arguably of greater severity on his people than his predecessors’ efforts.
Closer to home, the United Kingdom has a prime minister similarly elected on a minority of the vote, and with no parliamentary majority – a situation which would usually lend itself to forced cooperation of political foes with compromise on ideological beliefs.
The UK Parliament is being hijacked and all oversight and accountability is being eradicated, with ideological beliefs actually being hardened.
Instead, the UK Parliament is being hijacked and all oversight and accountability is being eradicated, with ideological beliefs actually being hardened.
Firstly, taxpayer money was promised to various Northern Irish projects in return for DUP supply and confidence votes, in a move which is now to be subject to a parliamentary vote.
Then comes the unusual step of Conservatives gaining a majority on the Committee of Selection. This is unusual insofar as the makeup of the committee is supposed to reflect the makeup of the House – no majority in the Commons should equal no majority of the committee.
In turn, as the Committee of Selection chooses MPs for the other committees, this has allowed the gerrymandering of all manner of select committees. The Scottish Affairs Committee is one glaring example.
The SNP holds 59 per cent of Scottish seats, yet has three members. Conservatives have four members, from 20 per cent of Scottish seats. This is an even bigger anomaly if you consider that under 30 per cent of this committee backs Scottish independence, despite opinion polls for Yes having rarely dipped below 40 per cent since the referendum in 2014.
At the same time as removing parliamentary oversight of law making, the government is seeking to remove citizens rights to challenge the government in the courts.
Scotland may actually count itself lucky, as the Northern Irish Affairs Committee consists of four MPs from the unionist community of Northern Ireland and not one single representative of the other communities. Given the predicament of Northern Irish politics, this is massive misstep.
The DUP in general seems to be over represented on committees, with 80 per cent of its elected members finding themselves serving. Not bad considering they represent under 300,000 voters out of an electorate of 32 million.
It is questionable, considering the calibre of some, including Sammy Wilson on the Brexit committee, who regularly attracts controversy on issues ranging from climate change denying to having to clarify he didn’t agree with racist comments, or Gregory Campbell who was banned for a day after he thought it humorous to open a Stormont speech with some mockery of the Irish Language.
It reflects poorly on the current UK Government that prominence is given to such individuals.
Aside from the committee gerrymandering, the greatest achievement of this minority government is the Brexit Repeal Bill, an Act of Parliament that will remove democracy from law making altogether.
Ministers appointed by a prime minister who did not secure a majority will soon be free to make laws, free of judicial challenge from those who may be affected by them.
This has been seen previously with the Enabling Act of 1933, of course – one that wasn’t a UK act, but rather one of the Reichstag. I don’t compare the two flippantly; Hitler had his cabinet devise the Act after he failed to win a majority and had to depend on votes of the German National People’s Party. Recent events strike chilling parallels.
Current rhetoric emanating from the government regarding “foreigners” and “taking back control” merely reinforces the comparison.
At the same time as removing parliamentary oversight of law making, the government is seeking to remove citizens rights to challenge the government in the courts.
Ministers appointed by a prime minister who did not secure a majority will soon be free to make laws, free of judicial challenge from those who may be affected by them. The plot lines of many dystopian fictional stories have become reality in 2017.
In recent days a strange whiff of propaganda has begun to appear. Journalists criticising reporting of facts by news organisations as “unpatriotic” have appeared and the undermining of potential troublemakers has begun.
The plot lines of many dystopian fictional stories have become reality in 2017.
Under the guise of “20 years of Holyrood”, a number of so-called professional journalists have begun to question the effectiveness and even the legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it is just lazy journalism, or poor journalism, but when read with similarly “lazy” articles, patterns emerge.
Outlets pounce on sound bites; “not enough psychiatrists”, Scotland has more per capita than other UK regions; “Cancer waiting times are awful”, but Scotland’s are far better than other UK regions; “GERS proves we cannot be independent”, irrespective of your views on the contents of GERS, the idea that someone mismanaging something extremely badly is the rationale to allow them to continue is ludicrous.
In any event, Holyrood has achieved many great things for the people of Scotland, from equal marriage to smoking and drinking laws, baby boxes, NHS funding, education and prescriptions to infrastructure projects delivered pretty much on time and under budget (compare with Boris’s garden bridge). It is far from the dud you would imagine having read some recent columns.
There is little no fact-checking or investigating of what amounts to press releases from the UK Government. They are simply parroted out, and now combined with, “so what is Holyrood really for?”.
The usual suspect journalists are either complicit or hopelessly naive. The former conclusion is perhaps the only one to be drawn when the scrutiny of politicians is analysed, with any SNP indiscretion leading bulletins for days, yet barely a whisper when a Tory MP makes racist comments on the radio.
Lest we also forget that before Holyrood, Scotland had more MPs, 74 if memory serves. The number was reduced to appease the first wave of West Lothian Question agitators. If Holyrood was to be closed, Scotland, one of the “partner of equals”, would have the least power and representation it has had since the late 1800s.
The ‘mother of parliaments’ is in danger of killing democracy. How do we define democracy? Perhaps Oxford will evaluate that in the next few months, before adding: “The rule regardless of the majority of people.”
Picture courtesy of Gordon Wrigley
Look at how important CommonSpace has become, and how vital it is for the future #SupportAReporter