ZAC GOLDSMITH: We were promised we'd be able to recall MPs...so much for the Coalition's promises!
A question that I, like all candidates on the campaign trail, was repeatedly asked by voters was: ‘How do I know that you’ll honour your pledges, and what do we do if you don’t?’
The answer is you don’t know, and there’s nothing you can do, short
of voting differently five years later for another candidate whose pledges might be just as casual.
We have a spectacularly unresponsive political system and, as a result, politicians are now so mistrusted many voters simply opt for a pre-emptive stance of holding them in permanent contempt.
I was elected in May to represent Richmond Park and North Kingston partly on a promise that under a Tory Government there would be no third runway at Heathrow.
Zac Goldsmith: 'An MP could move to Hawaii - and there's nothing voters could do'
I know that there are some people who voted Conservative for the first time as a result.
But, like me, they were aware I could make the promise, and allow it to be broken just as easily – and that they would have no choice but to stick with me for five resentful years. That’s why I pledged that if the third runway were built, I would trigger a by-election.
But there is a way to make the system properly responsive – and to ensure that MPs are accountable to the voters on whose trust democracy depends.
The Coalition Government is already flirting with it. It has promised to introduce so-called ‘Recall’ laws that should allow voters to get rid of their representatives in between Elections.
The idea is to make politicians more accountable and to tackle the problem of ‘safe seats’ where MPs with enormous majorities are almost impossible to shift.
But what we’re being offered falls far short of true Recall. Instead of handing the power of Recall down to the voters, the measure will pass it up to MPs on the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Its members alone will decide if an MP has behaved badly enough to warrant being ‘recalled’.
The terms of reference are to be restricted to ‘serious wrongdoing’. This is emphatically not a true Recall mechanism and nor is it worthy of
the name.
Ironically, it could actually aggregate even more power at the top by handing this tiny group at Westminster the power to rid Parliament of troublesome MPs.
True Recall, indeed true democracy, allows people to remove their representative if a majority of constituents has lost confidence in him or her. I believe it is a right that should exist at every level, from councillor to MP.
It’s not a new idea. Under Californian law, voters are able to initiate a process where politicians can be ‘recalled’ from office. There have been a number of failed Recall attempts, including one against Ronald Reagan.
However, in 2003 voters successfully recalled sitting Governor Gray Davis and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But under current rules in Britain, a newly-elected MP could theoretically move to Hawaii for five years, and leave constituency work to a team employed at public expense.
The MP would be deselected, no doubt, and the Party Whip would be removed. But voters would still be lumbered with an absentee MP until the next Election.
In marginal seats, a negligent MP wouldn’t last more than a single term. But most MPs occupy ‘safe’ seats, and are hard, if not impossible, to shift. The pressure they feel is from the Party they belong to, from the centre, not from voters.
That’s why before Parliament rose for the summer, I launched my own Bill calling for a genuine Recall mechanism.
But on its own, Recall it is not enough. If people have pulled away from politics, it’s because the political process has become too remote.
That is true at every level – from the EU, whose decision-makers are insulated from democratic accountability, to the national, where the equation is only marginally better.
For the 1,500 or so days in between Elections, the public is denied any meaningful access to the decision-making process.
In local politics, it’s even worse. Local authorities have been stripped of powers to such an extent that they can’t even decide how many houses are going to be built. It means they can’t do what people expect them to do. They are effectively neutered.
The Coalition accepts that we need reform. But its answer – a choice between our current first-past-the-post system and the Alternative Vote – is a diversion that will make little difference.
Political reform should be about cutting the distance between people and power, and the easiest place to start is locally. Alongside my Recall Bill, I have tabled another measure: the Local Referendums Bill.
This is Direct Democracy, a simple concept that allows people to intervene on any local issue, providing they can muster sufficient support. Decisions could be challenged and new ideas proposed.
The Government has said that it will introduce local referendums, but it remains to be seen how far it is willing to go. It would be a mistake if, as some fear, the proposal is simply to give people the power to have their ideas debated by the professionals – effectively only one small step up from the usual no-hope petitions.
This combination of genuine Recall and authentic local referendums would transform our politics.
And, as we grow more used to the idea that people are capable of making
decisions for themselves – the concept at the heart of David Cameron’s Big Society – Direct Democracy could be expanded to cover national issues.
We would need a debate about the issues that could be influenced via a national referendum. Issues relating to war, for instance, would need to be exempt, to allow an elected Government to make speedy decisions.
But constitutional issues, such as the transfer of powers to the EU, would justify use of a national ballot initiative.
There would need to be rules ensuring balanced coverage of an issue, honest wording of questions, the number of signatures required to trigger a referendum and so on.
In Switzerland, if 100,000 signatures can be collected within an 18-month period, a proposal can be put on the ballot paper and voted on by the
public.
If it is passed, it becomes law. Opponents of Direct Democracy argue that ordinary people are too irresponsible to be trusted with important decisions.
But that is an argument against democracy itself, the same argument that was used to prevent women being given the vote.
Others will argue that Direct Democracy will give newspapers too much influence. But newspapers already have far more influence over 650 vulnerable MPs than they ever could over a notional audience of 60 million.
Another argument is that policy can be too complex. But the purpose of Direct Democracy is to provide people with a safety valve, not to create ‘government by referendum’.
Besides, a referendum would prompt precisely the kind of public engagement politicians claim they want to encourage.
Nor is the greatest fear – that of the ‘mob’ – borne out by practical experience. In June, Switzerland, a nation with a reputation for insularity, was asked to tighten its citizenship laws, making it harder for foreigners to gain naturalisation.
Much to the surprise of international commentators, the proposal was rejected by a margin of almost two to one in a referendum.
If there are better mechanisms than Recall and local referendums for keeping our own politicians on their toes, it’s hard to imagine what they would look like.
I would welcome both, and I believe many other MPs would embrace them to reinforce our treasured but increasingly fragile democracy.
