This week the Conservative Government has been accused of reneging on a Manifesto pledge to not raise taxes when it announced in its budget that it would increase National Insurance Contributions (a tax) for Self-Employed people in the UK. After a backlash of political pressure and comments from the press, the Prime Minister announced the following day that this move would be put back until the autumn after a review, but that it will still go ahead. In the event that it does go ahead, and assuming that it does indeed represent a broken promise what then..? What recourse is offered to the electorate to sanction governments who say one thing and then do another?
The British democracy experiences general elections every 5 years (with certain exceptions), by which process the people elect their representatives or Members of Parliament (MPs). From these MPs the government is formed – usually by the single largest party. The prospective MPs campaign prior to the election and set out their Manifesto, comprising their personal aims alongside the goals of the party of which they form a part (if they do. The electorate then decide for whom to vote based upon these Manifestos.
Given that MPs therefore are elected because of what they say they will do, should there be any comeback for a party or individual when they do something different to that which was promised?
I, as an employee of a private company, am asked to perform a certain role in my daily work, and am in turn evaluated in my execution of that role. The evaluation is periodic (often annual) and I can be rewarded or penalised by the organisation should I exceed or fail to meet the required standards or behaviour and ability. It is even possible that I be removed from my post against my will because of a poor performance; and such removal can occur at any time. Bearing in mind that I am being remunerated for doing this, it seems to be logical and reasonable that I either do what I say I will or am able to be sanctioned.
Yet this simple tool is not available for an MP… A Member of Parliament in the UK suffers no such evaluation of performance, and the only threat of dismissal (other than during a General election) comes through the Representation of the People Act (1981), which states that any MP will be disqualified from sitting as an MP if they are “detained anywhere in the British Islands or the Republic of Ireland … for more than a year for any offence”. So basically, once elected, an MP can do (politically) whatever they like – with impunity.
The definition of democracy is: (Merriam-Webster)
- government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
- government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
The latter of these two definitions is that which best describes most modern democracies – which by means of free elections create a body or bodies of representatives who then govern for a specified period of time. However, I would argue that any ‘democracy’ which does not permit that that such representatives be held to account for their actions (or inactions) does not represent a system in which the supreme power is held by the electorate; since by virtue of the fact that once elected there is no recall, the supreme power is in fact, for the period of the parliament in the hands of the MP rather than the voter. The contention that the process of General Elections itself permits the electorate to hold MPs to account is disingenuous; MPs are elected for 5 years and stay in post for 5 years, there is thus no threat of sanction or dismissal within the terms agreed for the post.
Furthermore, with no standards for, or measurement of performance, against what criteria could any MP be judged anyway? There does (in fact) exist a job description for an MP – which was outlined by the Commons Commission in 2007, yet this contains no specific, measurable targets at all, and thus cannot be used to establish competence.
(It is further enlightening to note that in the Job Description, the Commons Committee details Parliamentary Working practices, in which it indicates that “Members appear in the Chamber to speak rather than to listen. It is a forum for making a case but for most of the time has only a marginal effect on major decisions.” In the spirit of being argumentative I am quite interested in establishing what may be the point of speaking if no-one is listening… If, as can be inferred, the Chamber of the House of Commons is merely a place where on goes to explain the decision that one has already made, then there is in fact no point to it at all beyond that of voting.)
We are left then impotent to do anything other than complain about the fact that our representatives have reneged on whatever it is that they promised. Perhaps the system should be changed in order to redress this… yet we the people cannot do this, because we do not have the supreme power, and we cannot force the change.