Following a heated Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK Parliament this week, it has been reported that Boris Johnson is unhappy with his performances and that he has asked his support team to find information which will enable more direct (and possibly personal) attacks on the leader of the Labour Party Keir Starmer.

The stated purpose of UK Parliamentary Question Times is to permit that MPs ask questions of the government about matters for which they are responsible.  In the case of Prime Minister’s Questions, these questions are directed to the Prime Minister rather than other members of the government. Nothing more is indicated on the Parliamentary website – no underlying objective of the process, no reason for its inclusion in British politics – the site merely states that questions can be asked.  In the absence of anything more concrete, I will assume then that the objective is to permit the MPs (and possibly the public) an insight into the reasons why the government undertakes certain courses of action, and to assess how they might react should certain scenarios occur – providing transparency of motivation and aims.

This process therefore entails that the questions asked be answered – otherwise there is little point to the whole exercise, other than to publicly make a statement; something which could be achieved simply by going to the press!  It is surely the responsibility then of the person to whom the questions are being asked to provide answers – and not to seek to attack the questioner…  attacking the person asking the question is no more than an attempt to avoid the question and/ or to question the legitimacy of the questioner: a right which is granted through both the election process and the agreed-on Parliamentary processes.

If this is what politics has become (and it clearly is – and has been for as long as I can remember), then this charade does not fulfil the purpose of allowing the questioning of either the Prime Minister or the actions taken by the government.  So what then is the point?  If I wanted to read about the failings of various members of parliament, I’m sure that there are ways this can be done – it should not be done in a forum designed to question the government.

Not only is this entire approach a mockery of the concept of democracy and ‘open government’, but it clearly shows the mindset of the participating politicians, not least of whom is the Prime Minister.  This practice demonstrates that the Prime Minister believes that he does not have to account for his actions and that he can prove his worth simply by rubbishing the opposition.  That is not debate – that is like children sticking their tongues out at each other in the playground.

If a government cannot defend its actions – then those actions are by definition indefensible.  If a government refuses to defend its actions, then it displays a clear contempt for the nature of the office.  (Boris Johnson is by no means the only politician to behave in this way; in my experience all Prime Ministers have behaved in a similar fashion – although Boris Johnson is perhaps the most brazen of UK politicians in this regard.

In all honesty, it doesn’t matter whether or not the actions that the government have taken are supported by the opposition or not – what is important is that the government can explain WHY they were taken.  The opposing politicians may not agree with the reasoning, but I would argue that both they and the public have a right to know what that reasoning is.  Empirically speaking, it is not possible to determine the correctness or appropriateness of a course of action unless the goal of that action is known.  Likewise, it is not possible to judge whether or not the performance of government is adequate unless the manner and mechanisms of its deliberations are known.  How can the citizens judge a governments actions if they are unaware of the underlying analysis?  How can the public assess the performance of a government when they are unable to judge a government’s actions?

From my perspective, any government (or individual politician) that either cannot or will not explain the rationale and justifications for an action is not fit for purpose.  Similarly, any political or governmental processes which permit that such explanations are not given is also not fit for purpose.  If there is to be any accountability in a democratic process, then the electorate require this knowledge in order to be able to make a decision – otherwise people have little choice but to cast their votes based on incomplete or misleading information: and that is not democracy. Refusing to provide this information equates to deception.

I honestly fail to understand how any politician can perform in a manner such as this and still maintain that they are part of a democratic process.  Surely the whole point of being a politician is to ask for public support for a political standpoint; and no politician can ever hope to ask for that if they are not prepared to fully explain what that standpoint is and on what basis it was formed.

If a position of representation or responsibility cannot be obtained on the basis of honesty, then it is not merited.  The perpetuation of or participation in processes which tolerate deception and obfuscation, serves only to preserve the appearance of a democratic process; it does not actually preserve it… and any politician who seeks to perpetuate the perception of democracy rather than seeking to preserve actual democracy is not supporting democracy.

Perhaps too we should ask whether or not the public are also culpable; by continuing to accept a process which encourages and rewards this behaviour.

Without significant change, the ‘democratic’ processes will continue to degrade.  Independent arbitration of performance is needed.  Full disclosure of all meetings and decisions is needed – paving the way for an active and informed electorate who can at least hope to hold their representatives to account.