Although I agree that our system has many flaws and produces too many uninteresting and, indeed, false debates, I believe 'general consensus' and 'giving the people what they want' are not as wonderful as they sound. An emphasis on 'general consensus' can come unpleasantly close to one-party and ultimately to totalitarian rule. Minorities, dissidents, and those who simply disagree on this particular issue should never be forgotten. At the other extreme, if we try to 'give people what they want' within Parliament, members will be free to stand up, say whatever comes into their head, wander from the subject, contradict themselves, and completely fail to relate the speech to what has gone before, in the comfortable knowledge that the next speaker will not have been listening to their speech. This is wonderful anarchy and full of interesting thoughts, but it does not respond to the realities of governing a country. Ideally, a two-party system forces everyone to think carefully and speak lucidly about a particular proposal. Even with three parties, the need to challenge the government can still work effectively.
In theory in our system a proper debate takes place and the public have a coherent set of arguments upon which to base their own verdict. In practice debates are often confused, vague and illogical because members of Parliament are ordinary muddled human beings who may not be very good at public speaking. Nevertheless, proper structures for rational argument are profoundly democratic. The British invention of a properly constituted 'loyal Opposition' and a culture of public service (shaky but still there) prevent our political classes from rushing or being rushed in one direction without ever stopping to weigh up the consequences.
Chapter 2. Policy-making. Good Decisions, Bad Decisions and How We Influence Them
In the previous chapter I described our political system and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of our kind of democracy. In this chapter I look at some of the ways in which daily life is organised in Britain. 'Running the country' is the simple way of saying 'Managing or Organising the Country.' Do you know how your government 'manages' daily life in Russia? How do decisions made at the top - within the Ministries - reach ordinary people? Have they much been changed during the journey? Should they be changed during the journey? In Britain, the government, through its Ministries, has to initiate policies which it believes will make British citizens more prosperous or more efficient or healthier. Because we live in a democracy, the citizens themselves are always arguing with the Government and among themselves about what they want most. This is how much of our policy-making is carried out.
An obvious example of policymaking arises because there are too many poor people in Britain - something which worries everyone. What must be done? The Government looks at the evidence from many reports and studies, and decides that the best way to lift poor people out of poverty is to ensure that they have jobs - real jobs with real wages. First, because when they work poor people earn money, secondly because they are brought into society instead of sitting, unemployed and lonely in their houses, thirdly because work gives them pride, satisfaction and the possibility of achieving more. That sounds obvious and popular. But it is not so simple.
Among those groups suffering from poverty are many young, single, unemployed mothers. So the government announces that it is going to spend millions of pounds helping young mothers without partners to go to work, Money will be spent, for example, to provide crèches (safe play places for children at the place of work or nearby). You might think that these mothers would be grateful, and some of them are. But many say bitterly, 'How can I bring up my child decently, if I am at work all day? A mother should stay with her child or children when they are small. Babies need their mothers!' Someone complains to a journalist and the complaint becomes an attack on the government.
Suddenly the Government is seen as a great bully, trying to separate mothers and babies from each other. The Minister for Employment hastily explains that the policy is to help mothers whose children are at school, not mothers of very young children. Very welclass="underline" but then the Ministers and experts look at the research: single mothers who are not at work but looking entirely after their under-school-age child often suffer from depression. What is more, if they are by themselves they are more likely to have another child without having a husband or long-term partner. These are the young women who most need to be at work. Meanwhile, other organisations and local groups are suggesting different policies. Why not give these young women benefits (special money allowances) to help them stay at home more happily? Another organisation for Traditional Family Values' asks 'Is this policy fair to other young mothers who have decided not to have children until they have a loving husband?' A Children's Society announces 'The child should come first' without making it clear which policy is best for the child.
You can see that the government has a problem. So does our democratic society. The policy is discussed in Parliament, in the Civil Service, in homes, in pubs, among young mothers, both married and single; among employers; at the Treasury which has to decide whether there is money for the policy; in academic circles where social research takes place; among trade unions; in newspapers and on the BBC. The public arguments help to shape and even change the Parliamentary debate - and that debate can affect government policy. After all, if the government does not listen to such debates it will probably lose the next election.
On the other hand, if the government listens too much to all the public discussions, it will keep changing its mind, and lose direction. So a major question in a democracy is 'How much notice should a government take of public opinion?' None at all and it becomes arrogant and autocratic; too much and it becomes indecisive and weakly populist. [There is more on this subject in Part 5, Chapter 8.]
What is essential is that the public discussion should be there, in Parliament, in the media, in committees and research centres, in homes and pubs and meeting-places of all kinds. Not everyone in Britain is interested in 'politics'. Many of us (too many of us) do not vote at elections, but we all have views and opinions. Some of these opinions rest on nothing but prejudice but many of them rest on an argument about values. I have tried to show in my example how people of goodwill who all want to help the poor can disagree intensely about how this should be done. That is because of the argument about values. Any decent society, certainly any democracy needs this argument. Government becomes dangerously powerful when it encourages the attitude, 'Ah, we all agree!!' Fortunately that does not happen in Britain. The right to disagree and to declare one's disagreement is essential to the way our society works.
Western visitors to the Soviet Union used to laugh among themselves at the bureaucratic complications which were necessary before any simple action could be taken. Tourist groups would look in amazement at their Intourist Guides who spent their mealtimes and free hours filling in forms and copying (he details onto other forms. We explained to ourselves that this was an example of the foolishness of Soviet planning. Today, in Britain, in the early years of the twenty-first century, we are no longer laughing. We seem to have caught the bureaucratic disease and we are not sure what to do about it.
All societies need efficient administration to make sure that plans and policies turn into actions. Unfortunately administrators and their teams of officials, regulators and clerks have a habit of developing complicated paper-and-computer systems, unless those outside bureaucracy find ways of restraining them, by simplifying administration and regulation. In Britain we think of bureaucrats as people who are tying up an enormous parcel, not with string but with lengths of official red tape. If someone manages to reduce paperwork we say that he 'cut the red tape'. The problem is that while almost everybody thinks that 'cutting red tape' is a good idea, almost everybody is, at the same time, in favour of some new regulations.