Priority Number One: electoral reform

The Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter Labour movement column

Early radicals knew that there was a symbiotic relationship between political reform and social and economic change. You can’t consider Thomas Paine and the English Jacobins, the Chartists, all the way to the Suffragettes without being struck by the inextricable bond that they saw between democratic change and justice. They were right.

And yet, the Labour party has never been a reformist party when it comes to our constitution. Every time it has supped from the chalice of power, it has forgotten that to really change this country and embed that change, then its politics have to change also.

The bible of leftist reformism, Tony Crosland’s The Future of Socialism, completely ignores the need for political change. He saw the challenge for the left as alleviating distress, resentment and injustice. It was just that it would be done from Whitehall. Clever people knew what was best and they had the intellectual and technocratic tools with which to create a just nation.

History loops. Now this government has fundamentally failed to properly grasp genuine and deep political reform. Sure, devolution to Scotland and Wales was a real and welcome exception to this. And so was the creation of a strategic Mayor for London. The Human Rights Act and the abolition of the vast majority of hereditary peers were welcome also. And so was the Freedom of Information Act.

But have these reforms fundamentally created a political system that is more pluralistic, democratic, and inclusive? Has a dynamic of social change been woven into the system? Unfortunately not. It’s all well and good when you have a Labour government. But what if you don’t?

It is not as if there weren’t warnings of the error of not changing the British constitution. Will Hutton always saw political and economic reform as part of a complete package. You can only challenge concentrations in economic power if you do the same in political power. Pluralism is the enemy of concentrated economic power.

David Marquand was also despairing of the left’s self-defeating myopia when it came to political reform. Amartya Sen, whose notion of ‘capability’ is the flavour of the month, sees the link. His famous dictum that no famine has occurred in a democratic country pointedly demonstrates the relationship between having a say and ensuring that your needs are met.

At the launch of Demos’ Open Left project on Monday, Jon Cruddas made the telling point without equivocation that Labour’s number one priority before the next election must be reform of the electoral system. There is absolutely no reason why the next election could not be the last one under first past the post. Cruddas’ point is absolutely right.

It has become increasingly clear that Jon Cruddas sits on the ideological fault line that has always existed within the Labour party between the socialist left and the social democratic right. There is a distinct sense when listening to him that he is starting to see tectonic plates shifting but to where is not clear. This tension will need a release. The electoral system and its need for median hooked, tightly disciplined, media obsessed parties is one of the primary reasons for this build up of tension.

The Conservatives have exactly the same issue. Clarkite one nation, pro Europeans sit uneasily alongside the neo-Thatcherite bulk of the modern Conservatives.

An open electoral system could enable a far more creative exploration of political alternatives. It may even mean – as happened with the achievement of universal suffrage – a realignment of sorts. By allowing a greater range and scope of political discussion without catastrophic political consequences, our politics will become refreshed, open, and more relevant. Although, this would only flourish should primaries for the selection of candidates be introduced alongside electoral reform.

A referendum should be held on the same day as the next election on whether to install the Alternative Vote as the electoral system. If it were a clear status quo versus reform choice then it would have every chance of success. There is such an appetite for change in the country at large. It is far more fundamental than whether there is a change of government or not. The Lib Dems would have to show flexibility and pragmatism, as would others.

Labour must revisit its radical roots. Radical politics depends on political reform. A pluralistic and open politics is a necessary corollary of social justice. The next year may or may not be the last opportunity to do this. Why take the risk?

There is no worse prospect imaginable than sitting in opposition and ruing what might have been. And by demonstrating that Labour is committed to fundamental change, it may just show that, whatever they claim, the Conservatives are the status quo. That would be a timely reminder in an election year.