Why democratic reformers almost always lose

The Labour Movement colum

By Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter

Intriguingly, Andrew Sparrow speculates that the main division in the Labour party may now be between the pluralists and the ‘loyalists.’ Perhaps ‘majoritarians’ would be a better description for the latter but there are now clearly divergent views within the party about the whole nature of politics, power and change.

But this is just a chattering-class, dry academic debate, right? People don’t care about it on the doorstep. They care about jobs and public services. Anyway, there are too many tricky technical issues to resolve.

In this vein, if you wish to understand the pragmatic rear-guard action that majoritarians will fight then Tom Harris’s blog post in reaction to the Prime Minister’s announcement that a commitment to a referendum on the Alternative Vote would be in the manifesto is instructive.

Naturally, all the technical arguments can be dealt with relatively easily. But the political objections are far more difficult to handle. Not only is there a split between pluralists and majoritarians but pluralists themselves are split. The split may even be – disappointingly – irreconcilable.

Just read the account by John Harris of the Democratic Renewal Rally on Wednesday. Progress, the Fabians, and Compass jointly sponsored it. It demonstrates that age-old reformist dilemma of take what you can or accept nothing but everything you demand.

The issue goes even deeper than that. There are some who believe that you can’t be a real pluralist or reformer unless you support proportional representation, which the Alternative Vote isn’t. Actually, there are many on the pluralist and reformist side who are deeply sceptical about proportional representation, myself included.

How could a non-majoritarian support anything other than proportional representation? Well, it all comes down to your starting point.

It has become quite clear that political, social, environmental, and economic reform are all essential aspects of the historical mission of the left which is to create a more just society in which individuals are able to enjoy the very best chance to convert their opportunities into life outcomes. In order to do this they need control over their lives.

Self-control or empowerment comes in many different guises. Any genuinely reformist programme has to cover all the bases. The weakness of the left is that it allowed political reform to float away from other aspects of a reformist vision. This was a grand historical error, and one that republicans and revolutionaries in times past would never have made.

Now, there are a number of different aspects to political reform: openness and transparency, civil rights, proximity of administration (i.e. devolution), democratisation and responsive administration, and the electoral-political process. In terms of the fundamental question for the left – how we create a just society in which individuals have control over their ability to realise opportunities – the political process must hand the individual more control.

Clearly, in this regard first past the post is exceedingly flawed. The majority in any given constituency – and nationally – are effectively disenfranchised. There is no reformist or pluralist (or republican) who could defend that.

The Alternative Vote gives the majority in any given constituency a say. It is also a very unstable system. Small changes can unseat a representative even in constituencies that would not be marginal in first past the post. Incumbents find it tough. They have to be continually on their guard. In other words, they have to tend to their constituents’ needs. They have to hustle. Everything is up for grabs. More people feel they have a say and so participate. That is democratic.

To be clear, the primary strength of the Alternative Vote system is that it holds representatives locally accountable. Instability is good for democracy. On that basis, primaries add another democratic safeguard and draw even more people further into the political process. I like those too. In another split amongst pluralists there are those who vituperatively oppose them.

My problem with proportional representation is that in some respects it is even more stable than the current system. This is especially the case in multi-member constituencies (which all PR systems are to a greater or lesser extent.)

So local parties know what chunk of local support they need to get a seat so concentrate on that. It is conceivable that in wide swathes of the country they will concentrate on fewer voters than they do now and instead pour even greater resources into marginal seats. In this respect, it could be even worse than the current system. The Alternative Vote with a top-up safeguards against this and is probably the one PR system I could support.

There should be less of a problem with coalition formation which is often the objection to proportional representation. That is, there is less of a problem if the preferences of the parties are known in advance. The German electorate knew that the CDU/CSU preferred a coalition with the FDP and voted accordingly. That’s fine.

What isn’t fine is the silence of the Liberal Democrats in our own system. There is no such thing as equidistance and their silence undermines the own case that they make for proportional representation. If it is played as they play the current system then it becomes a game of elite bargaining rather than democratic renewal, which is totally unacceptable from a democratic pluralist perspective. And that is why I remain unconvinced about PR.

The key issue that reformists face, however, is the nature of pluralism. Many different and intellectually valid conclusions can be reached at from the same underlying principles. That is why cries of betrayal at the Prime Minister’s announcement are so misguided. The critical weakness was the failure to be bolder and hold the referendum on the day of the next election not the system he supported.

Pluralists and reformers disagree amongst themselves. It’s in the nature of the endeavour. If they are truly committed to seeing reform actually happen they do so in a respectful manner. They know that compromises may be necessary along the way.

If PR were to be the only viable way forward then if it was a system that improved on first past the post (i.e. AV+) in terms of democratic renewal then that would be acceptable. I hope that if AV proves to be the only viable alternative – which it seems to be – then pluralists and reformers of all types will accept that also.

It doesn’t seem that it will happen that way. And that is why, just as they almost always do, the majoritarians will win.