We are entering a very interesting time in British politics – aren’t we? That’s the statement that seems to be on lips of many politicos at the moment. Blair’s marathon premiership is coming to a close and a shake-up in British politics approaches. Brown versus Cameron, ‘clunking fist’ versus ‘New Conservatism’, question marks over the ‘special relationship’, over Green issues, perhaps finally over immigration - what a contest, what an election (whenever that might be), and such an uncertain outcome. Exciting stuff.

But others disagree. If only we could be more like the French, they say, or the Scots. They have real elections. For us in Britain here comes another disinterested election where perhaps 2/3rds of us vote, most by habit, and two near identical parties slog it out over a few marginal constituencies. Issues aren’t the core concern, personality and sensation, that’s the key.

A bit pessimistic I tend to think, especially looking at the history of extra-parliamentary activity in this country. Cast a quick glance over the scores of political cartoons from the 18^th century (think Hogarth, Gilray et al.), the association movement and the corresponding societies, and the public debates over the American War and the French Revolution. Then witness the Luddites, the Chartists, and reform agitation in the 1830s and 1860s, not to mention the growth of the popular press; and that’s before you’ve reached the 20^th century! Trade Unionism might then bear mentioning, so too the Constituency Associations, membership of the major political parties, and political protest for example over the Poll Tax and the Iraq War. Consider the fact that we have the strongest national press in the world, and a national readership not just of broadsheets and tabloids but also of journals and magazines like The Economist and Private Eye. Furthermore that the BBC has for at least 50 years been the most respected news corporation in the world, and that current programming like “Newsnight”, “Question Time”, “The Today Programme” and “Have I Got News for You” routinely expose politicians to very public and informed criticism. Take a quick look at America’s favourite paper, USA Today, for a quick comparison of ‘political engagement’ or similarly the critical blackout regarding Bush’s foreign policy that became a near consensus in the American media after 9/11.

‘Out of doors’ politics and the fourth estate have a history in this country. It is a history that has avoided the sort of political extremes that have repeatedly scarred our European counterparts (the 1848 Revolutions passed us by and compare the success of Mosley’s Blackshirts to Hitler’s SA or Mussolini’s Squadristi). It is a culture in which we have, for nearly three hundred years, been able and frequently willing to express political opinions publicly and forcefully, to mock and criticise our leaders, and to press for reform and change to the status quo – all without seriously threatening any kind of revolution in the process. Furthermore it seems to show convincing signs of continuing to do so in the future, with the internet revolutionising the potential of the press, especially with the growth of political ‘blogging’, and the success of organizations such as Make Poverty History and the increasingly powerful environmental lobby. Elections ought to be the hub therefore of what on the outside appears to be an active and vibrant political culture.

However in elections we have a problem; everyone has to vote, and not everyone does. Not even close. In this lies the cause of people’s pessimism. It is the failure to vote that creates such a small number of swing voters and the obsession with marginal constituencies. It is at least in part the need to grab voters’ attention that drives politicians more and more into the arms of the media and ‘consumer politics’. Above all it is surely the knowledge that they won’t actually vote that makes so many people not engage with the political issues of the day.

It is easy to wonder why fewer and fewer people are voting. A great deal can be said for the failure to teach basic politics in schools, the culture of political spin and celebrity we’ve had since the mid-1990s, the virtual one-party system since the Conservative capsize in 1997 or the growing complexity of international relations, global economics or issues like the EU constitution. One could spend all day finding reasons, they all lead to the same end however; a democracy increasingly without a demos.

Is there perhaps a solution however. Could people be obliged to vote? With the knowledge that their percentage share of votes corresponded to the entire population would politicians not command more respect? Would ‘designer politics’ not become less necessary? If voting was naturalised as an essential part of being a British citizen wouldn’t there be a greater engagement with politics in everyday life and overall a far healthier political system?

I am sure many will scream ‘nanny state’, logistical nightmare etc. But legally it could surely be tempered by casting the obligation in terms penalising only those who failed to vote without “reasonable excuse”. Furthermore with the potential of online politics, it could surely be made un-intrusive. The existence of facilities to manage mass online voting is demonstrated daily in phone-in voting on television. And surely if we can bank on-line it could be made safe enough to vote online! With such a strong heritage of extra-parliamentary political culture and such opportunities for the public to engage it seems tragic that when politics is so exciting, when issues are as critical as they are today, that political involvement is so limited and apathy is so prevalent. The forum exists to comprehend and debate issues on a national level outside of Parliamentary mechanisms. Is it perhaps time to make voting an obligation not a right; it would seem to be a small sacrifice to make with potentially huge results.

Filed under: democracy, electoralreform, history, ukpolitics on May 21st, 2007