I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that a huge, parliamentary majority is a threat to democracy as well as a curse on the party having one.
While a landslide is the goal of any party, it can sow the seeds of its own destruction, as a party with a massive majority believes it can do anything it wants to without scrutiny, and a lack of scrutiny breeds overconfidence and complacency. Indeed, it can pave the way to a totalitarian outlook.
Not having to be subject to scrutiny leads to the governing party to ignoring those who elected it and becoming out of touch and politicians ignore the electorate at their own peril. While many vote along tribal lines and are merely unthinking drones, majorities are conferred by voters who change their minds and, if minds have been changed once, they can change again. It's the voter who changes his mind, or believes sufficiently in a particular policy to lend his vote to a particular party, who holds the cards. Politicians in majority governments, and especially governments with huge majorities, tend to forget this political truth.
It's a fact of political history in the UK that parties benefiting from huge majorities have generally achieved far less than those with a working majority (Macmillan's government after 1959, with a 100 seat majority, achieved far less than Churchill's working majority of 17 in 1951. Wilson's administration of 1964, with a 5 seat majority, achieved more than his 1966 administration with a majority of 96. Both Thatcher and Blair achieved more with working majorities than landslides). The reason for this is that, with a lack of opposition, the governing party start to fight among itself. With a cohort of a couple of hundred MPs having no chance whatsoever of getting a ministerial brief, they start making trouble for the leader and rebel. We're seeing this already in Boris' administration.
It's a fact of political history in the UK that parties benefiting from huge majorities have generally achieved far less than those with a working majority (Macmillan's government after 1959, with a 100 seat majority, achieved far less than Churchill's working majority of 17 in 1951. Wilson's administration of 1964, with a 5 seat majority, achieved more than his 1966 administration with a majority of 96. Both Thatcher and Blair achieved more with working majorities than landslides). The reason for this is that, with a lack of opposition, the governing party start to fight among itself. With a cohort of a couple of hundred MPs having no chance whatsoever of getting a ministerial brief, they start making trouble for the leader and rebel. We're seeing this already in Boris' administration.
What opposition there is generally tends to ditch their losing leader, along with the losing policies, performs a consultation exercise and emerges much stronger, going on to win the next general election through the complacency of the incumbent government.
This, to me, is the best argument in favour of Proportional Representation.
No comments:
Post a Comment