David Nash: The Chartists: Charting a Future Democracy
Many contemporary commentators are pessimistic about the nature of British Parliamentary democracy and despair of its future. The voting turnout in local, national and European elections has been in steady decline for decades. Engaged interest in politics has entered the doldrums, evidenced by dwindling levels of both party membership and active involvement in the political system. Most damaging of all is the catastrophic collapse of confidence in the operation and conduct of Parliament itself. The controversial and divisive issue of expenses for Members of Parliament has seen trust in the motivation and morals of those who govern plummet. The insistent revelations about how MPs have systematically dodged and circumnavigated a number of rules and precedents conjures up an image of individuals out of tune with the electorate and, perhaps more importantly, inattentive to their duties. The democratic and electoral system seems lethargic, encourages morally dubious practices and is unfit for purpose.
The Chartist movement of the late 1830s and 1840s believed that people had no one else but themselves to blame for the actions of their politicians. It would argue today that the electorate has allowed Parliamentary democracy to evolve in the way it has. The Chartists’ approach to the nature of democracy was informed by the desire for Parliament to display a willingness and an ability to affect the lives of ordinary people. The 1830s had seen Parliament take an increasingly active role in the governance of the country and the development of domestic policy. This whole period was characterised by the willingness of politicians to consider policies that were deemed by those in government to be of benefit to society. This began with the work of the so-called enlightened Tories, whose philosophy and policy measures, such as Robert Peel’s streamlining of the justice system, had moved away from a concentration upon cheap and undemanding government in favour of forms of intervention....
The Chartist desire to see Members of Parliament elected every year would have turned them from representatives into delegates. If they were able to see modern Britain’s political system Chartists would point to the fact that Members of Parliament need only seek a mandate from their constituents every four or five years. This, so they would berate us, has led to the collapse of interest in Parliamentary politics. Annual elections would encourage and, arguably, force individuals to participate in the political process. The Members of Parliament would be obliged to remain in close and beneficial contact with their electorate, ensuring a healthy level of empathy and understanding. Chartists further argued that annual parliaments would allow the electorate to vote out unpopular or unsatisfactory candidates. The drastic action of individuals, such as the crusading journalist Martin Bell who stood for Parliament in 1997 against the incumbent Conservative MP Neil Hamilton (who had been tarnished by allegations of sleaze), would be unnecessary since such action could be taken by the electorate itself. Members of Parliament would thereafter be almost exclusively beholden to the wishes of their constituents and would be faced with a compelling need to reflect the agendas of those who elected them. If this measure had come to pass we can easily speculate that the political history of 19th-century England and Britain would have been profoundly different. The growth and development of modern political parties would arguably have been retarded or completely prevented by an agenda which made Members of Parliament constantly look over their shoulders towards their constituencies rather than forge alliances and working relationships at Westminster. The office of prime minister and its relationship with the monarchy would similarly have been profoundly different, as would some of the decisions about the Empire and other aspects of foreign policy. The framing of legislation and its acceptance by the will of the people would have been unrecognisable and would probably have fulfilled the wishes of the Chartists in their quest to combat the ‘politics of the excluded’.
This delegate principle was also practised by the Chartists themselves within their own organisations and meetings. At most of these the chairing of meetings was rotated amongst the membership as a basic principle. This also, however, promoted their ideal of participation, giving all who attended the chance to exercise power and know what it felt like. This was training of the highest kind, fitting for all who engaged in politics. However, it was also aimed at removing the dangers of sloth and passivity from the electorate, compelling active involvement and engagement. If Chartists were to bring their scrutiny further upon our modern system they would also feel compelled to criticise how our MPs have ended up as representatives rather than as the delegates they sought to institute. They would criticise the presumption of MPs to think, speak and vote ‘on behalf ’ of the electorate as a species of arrogance, with the result that 21st-century Britain has succumbed to the rule of a professional governing class. From this, the Chartists would argue, stem many contemporary ills. The scandal over MPs expenses is a clear consequence of a failure to pay members properly, but more importantly a token of the surrender of the principles of accountability and the regular renewal of Parliament’s covenant with those it was established to serve. These two factors, so Chartists would argue, encourage and actively promote cynicism towards Parliament and politicians, resulting in an electorate increasingly estranged from the political process. In such an unhealthy political climate, interest and participation becomes the grudgingly unusual exception rather than the virtuous norm.
While the Chartist movement and the petition it presented to Parliament for the last time in 1848 succumbed to disarray, those involved would have chided Britons of the 21st century for the considerable mess they have made of the Parliamentary system. Britons may have the vote, but Chartists would argue that their power is diminished and that the country’s experience of its own politics is damaged as a result.