Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 507
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 507 September 2005
A new voting system for the British House of Peers
It might be thought that the election to a former parliamentary chamber representing one country's aristocrats is hardly a subject for the attention of world citizens. Nevertheless, in the transition from a system privileging one section of a population to a more democratic and equitable one is something necessary in many countries. Most states in the world today are even less democratic than Britain, and many of them grossly so: wisdom is rare enough that it should be sought wheresoever it may be found.
It is widely agreed that the position of the House of Lords in 2005 is unsatisfactory and indefensible and it needs to be changed. But there are various obstacles in the way of useful reform, notably the fear that a strengthened chamber would become a rival to a democratically elected Commons and would therefore challenge it. If more democratic, but kept with little real power, the Lords would chafe against the restrictions and be difficult to resist. If empowered without specific reason it could create stalemate. The alternative might be to give it a new social function that would neatly reverse its historic role.
The idea is to create a democratic chamber designed to act, not, as in the past, to perpetuate inequality but to tend towards a more egalitarian society. To this end, the voting system should be modified considerably. Every adult citizen could have, potentially, ten voting points, these however, to be allocated in direct proportion to the personal wealth of the voter. Therefore the first task in creating the system would be to ascertain an average figure of wealth of all citizens, as the starting-point for measuring voting points. It would, inevitably, require to have some form of proportional representation, however constituencies were determined.
The vast majority of citizens, who have a personal wealth within a band of 10% above or below the average could be accorded five voting-points. Those with up to 20% above could have four points, those up to 40% above to have three points; those with up to 60% above to have two points. Even the filthy rich should still have one voting point. Measurement would need to occur in good time for elections and take into account both income and accumulated possessions. The system here suggested would be flexible - and could be changed when and as circumstances made it appropriate.
Looking at those intended to gain from the new system, the under-privileged should be accorded voting points above the norm, i.e. those with 20% below average wealth to have six, those having down to 30% below to get seven; those with less than that down to 40% should get eight, those down to 50% will get nine and those without even 50% of the average wage to get ten voting points. The system will need to be tried for a period of two elections and modified where that appears necessary. The unfortunate fact that voting levels among the poorest of the electorate are lower could be compensated for quite easily.
The immediate effect would not, perhaps, be very great. The supply of politicians already available would almost certainly ensure that the present parties would begin by having strong representation in the new House of Peers (recall that the word means Equals). But the new-found clout of the dispossessed, translated into a much greater representation and potential influence would quickly begin to transform social policies. It would compel governments to implement policies that corrected inequalities, in order to diminish the heavy imbalance in the voting power of constituencies of the poor.
It is not likely that such a shift in political power would bother the rich very greatly. The revolution in South Africa with the ending of apartheid has not led to the desertion of the country by most of its wealthy elite, nor have the controllers of the financial giants taken their money away. The shift might lead to the inability of some previously successful wealthy dilettantes to enter politics but that would be no great loss. In fact, in social terms, assuming that the powers of the present House of Lords were continued, nothing very much would be changed, except in one principal respect.
The concern of government to diminish poverty would be suddenly urgent. No longer would it be easy to ignore the more backward and poorer areas of the country because the 'smug south' or the wealthy middle-class suburbs were numerous enough to provide an adequate political backing. At first the effect would probably be to stimulate sharp changes in policy. It would be necessary to get the numbers below the poverty level down drastically. If not, they could constitute the backing for a strong opposition. However, with these measures taken, political stability would be restored.
Nevertheless, there would be a permanent corrective to the ambitions of government that ignored the effect of any policies or measures of taxation - direct or indirect - that might increase inequality. The people who are so easy to ignore in present-day society, because they are often invisible to the wealthy and powerful, would automatically be given an increase in their parliamentary representation. Generally, one can assume that the corrective would act as an influence: it would not need to be brought directly into play.
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|