Unfit To Govern?

On this day in 1681 Charles II, king of England, granted a charter to William Penn to found a colony in America. Penn named this colony partly for his family, and partly in recognition of the wooded beauty of this new land he sought to colonise. Thus was born the colony, and later state, of Pennsylvania.

He aimed to attract as many of his fellow religionists, the Quakers, to his new colony as possible, but it was his stated intent that this colony should be a haven for all fleeing religious persecution, and that all should be free to practice their religion, without fear or favour from it's government. The constitution and model of government he set up embodied many of his own values, and those of the Quakers, and had a profound influence on the later American revolutionaries (along with the writings of another great American Quaker, Thomas Paine), and played a significant part in their thinking when they wrote their own constitution a century later.

The Quaker role in the colony's government was short-lived, however, as they quickly recognised that the exercise of power tended to corrupt, and made it hard to live a virtuous life. They also regretted that their time was no longer spent in the pursuit of a life lived to their own high ethical standards, and that they spent their time instead in the squabbles and politicking of their legislature, divorced from the simplicity and everyday life that inspired their beliefs. The political realities, especially of sharing power with non-Quakers, made it seem impossible for them to function in accordance with their beliefs. And so they left, and returned to a life away from politics and government.

I have often wondered if they were right to make that withdrawal. Whether they were right to put aside the good influence that they undoubtedly had, and the good works they were able to undertake, in order to maintain their personal values unsullied. Were their values more important than the common good? How would the colony have developed under their continued influence? Is it possible to maintain virtue and ethics while exercising power?

The simple answer is that no-one knows, but that does not free us from the temptation of speculation, and I would certainly like to think that they would have resisted many of the pitfalls of our own politicians, despite the ever greater temptations and burdens placed upon them. The examples of unvirtuous behaviour in office, of corruption great and small, of the surrender of values and ethics to the political system, are so commonplace that the more cynical amongst us may well be justified in thinking that no-one can resist the blandishments of power. And the policies pursued may have served the people a little better if imbued with a little more of the Quaker virtues of integrity, equality, community, simplicity and peace.

It is certainly educational to watch the progress of our young politicians as they climb the ladder, and see the gradual transformation as they rise ever upwards. I have known a few of the current politicians at Westminster and Holyrood at various stages of their careers, from student days right through to parliamentary duty and even to ministerial office. Many have never been exactly virtuous or ethical; indeed they may be characterised as political creatures with all the political arts well in evidence. Others give hints that they may still have sight of some of the principles and ethics which first motivated them, and can still surprise us with their willingness to act accordingly.

I wonder whether, like the Pennsylvania Quakers feared, it is impossible to stay in contact with one's core values and the life experiences that motivated them when physically removed from the community, and ordinary life, as politicians necessarily are when conducting their legislative duties. Is it possible to maintain that mental awareness, whilst physically absent? Surely it should be, though it probably takes real effort, awareness and conviction to do so. Do our politicians have what it takes? Did they ever? Have any politicians ever?

I was shocked recently by reports originating in a TV reality show on Channel 4 (Tower Block of Commons), which placed a number of our Westminster politicians in tower block housing estates, to witness at firsthand the lives of some of the poorest and most deprived communities in our country. They were obviously shell-shocked at the extent of that deprivation and at the reality of the people's existence. Their naivety was outrageous, considering these were elected representatives, supposed to be representing their constituency in parliament. They are supposed to represent ALL their constituents, so how come they were so seemingly unaware of the housing, poverty, ill-health and lack of opportunity of a significant part of that electorate they represent? How did they become so isolated and divorced from that reality? And how can they possibly make policy, and act in the interests of their constituency, when they are so ignorant of it?

People have long suspected that their politicians had little idea of how many, if not the majority, live their lives. How could they have, in view of some of the pronouncements they make and some of the policies they espouse? How could they, when they live in the Westminster bubble, with so little contact with ordinary life? They never meet most of the underclasses and the deprived; they don't tend to go and see their MP, if they even know who they are, and they usually only get visited by politicians on stage-managed and ruthlessly choreographed photo-opportunities.



When we take this in conjunction with the ongoing scandals over politicians expenses at Westminster, and the inept way that has been handled, then it is clear that radical changes are required to make our parliaments truly representative, and to restore public confidence in politicians as people, and in their ability to act effectively in the interests of all our people.

As we approach a general election (probably only a few weeks away now), then it is difficult to see how the political parties will achieve this. They seem ill-equipped to do so, and it is even questionable if they yet properly understand the nature and depth of the problem, and the strength of feeling in the country about it. There is little evidence that change will happen, and that has consequences that few can wish. An electorate that does not believe in the system, and in politicians, is unlikely to vote, or to engage with the system at all. It is hard to achieve anything socially if politicians can not engage with the public. That alienation has severe implications for the stability of the system and our society, and can only lead to greater breakdown and dysfunction, and to extremes being given an ear.

I hope that those Pennsylvania Quakers may one day be proved wrong, but the odds seem stacked firmly against it at present, and there is little evidence of any rational basis for that hope.

Preserving Freedom

There has been much debate recently in the UK about whether the British National Party should be allowed to speak on national TV politics shows. Motions have been discussed within political parties and trade unions, and some have even suggested that the current ban on police officers belonging to this party should be extended to all public servants, national and local. There is talk of banning them from TV altogether, disallowing them from using any public facilities and putting other obstacles in their path.

This is a question that goes right to the heart of our definition of a free and democratic society.

The BNP are certainly a fascistic party with some pretty objectionable policies. They are, however, a legal political party, with elected local councillors and, now, two MEPs sitting in Strasbourg. They have existed as a legal entity for many years, but are enjoying renewed vigour, probably as a result of the recent immigration from the new EU accession states, and of the economic downturn. There may well be good arguments for banning such a party, and they are certainly acting illegally, under UK and EU law, in not allowing non-white people to join; they face a possible prosecution on this very issue. However, at present, they are a legal party, with legitimately elected representatives.

Can we, as a society espousing the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association, and as signatories to the Charter of Human Rights, stop people joining the legal political party of their choice, however repulsive it seems to many, or harass that party in the conduct of legitimate business? Under the rules of equal access and political bias, can our broadcasters deny them airtime or participation in political debate?

Is not the odiousness of their xenophobia and racism best exposed by publicly confronting it, holding it up to ridicule, and revealing the flawed logic and lack of intelligence behind it? Or do we fear that we are not able to do so? Do we defeat extremism by resorting to extremism, or by extolling the virtue of the opposing view and values, and by practising them? Should we not be trying to educate those communities and individuals who have chosen to support the BNP, rather than dismissing and abusing them?

If the electorate, rightly or wrongly, have chosen these people, then should they not be allowed to perform the duty of representing their electorate unimpeded? This is a representative democracy, and that means representing all, not just those we agree with. There seems a real danger of making martyrs and anti-heroes out of the BNP, if we persecute them.

Inciting violence and hatred are criminal offences in the UK, particularly against racial and religious minorities and the BNP will likely slip up at some point. As stated, already the Equality Commission are looking at prosecution over the party's rules on membership. If they break the law then action should be taken, but on the same basis as any other crime. This is the proper course to follow, in my opinion.

It seems to me that until this party are proscribed by some means, or a court case forces them out of existence, then they, and their members, have to be treated equally to other parties. That is the very essence of our freedoms, and to do otherwise undermines them. In a free democracy, we must have the right to speak as we choose, as long as we do not incite harm against others, and we must be free to join whatever parties and associations we choose, unless they are implicated in illegality. We can not pick and choose who we give rights to.