MATTHEW FLINDERS OPINION Political fall-out
Fewer people than ever are planning to vote in the forthcoming General Election. What is turning off the electorate? By Professor Matthew Flinders
T
HE LATEST AUDIT of Political Engagement by the Hansard Society reveals that only half of the public surveyed suggest they are actually going
to vote on 7 May, only a third thinks that the political system works well, only a third thinks that Parliament holds the government to account, whereas some elements of the political process – like the weekly Prime Minister’s Questions – seems almost designed to make large sections of society ‘turn off’ rather than ‘tune in’. And yet to talk about ‘disaffected democrats’ is not exactly a new or novel theme. The influential Trilateral Commission report The Crisis of Democracy was published 40 years ago and in many ways democracy seems in perpetual crisis – stumbling from scandal to scandal and failure to failure. But is there something different or novel happening today? The answer would appear to be ‘yes’. The first and arguably most significant shift is not so much in relation to high levels of political disengagement but to an increasing polarisation within society. Put slightly differently, political disengagement would be less of a problem if it were spread fairly evenly across society. But it is not. Democratic inequality is growing in ways that risk creating a vicious spiral of apathy and withdrawal. As the IPPR’s recent research on ‘divided
democracy’ reveals, if you are young or poor you are far less likely to vote than if you are older or wealthy. In 2010 just 44 per cent of 18-24 year olds voted in the General Election, compared to 76 per cent of those aged 65 and over (the gap was only 18 per cent in 1970 compared to 32 per cent in 2010). At the moment just 10 per cent of those aged 18-25 state that they are certain to vote in the 2015 General Election and in the United States the ratio of young to old voting is likely to be 1:4 by 2020. This ‘gap’ matters for at least three reasons:
First, there is increasing evidence of a ‘cohort effect’ in which young people do not take the participatory habit into later life; second, there is an understandable ‘policy effect’ in the sense that politicians tend to cater their policies to benefit those members of the public that are most like to vote (ie, the older and wealthier) thereby creating a spiral of cynicism on the part of the young and the poor, therefore further depressing turnout. Finally, there is an issue about roots and meaning and citizenship and notably about political recruitment as those from the most deprived and disengaged communities feel little commitment to broader society, let alone any aspiration to ‘step into the arena’ themselves.
‘The arena’ itself – the political institutions and mechanisms through which politics is conducted in the UK – is also under huge pressure in a manner that is arguably unique in British constitutional history. The Scottish independence referendum has not ‘solved’ a problem but has simply set in train a number of major constitutional tensions and pressures that the post-2015 government will somehow have to manage. More powers for Scotland, more for Wales and Northern Ireland, more to the northern powerhouses of Manchester, Sheffield and several other cities. But what kind of democracy are we trying to
build? How do the people of England have a say in the future of the UK? The European question and the surge in support for UKIP raises a host of related issues that each in their own ways suggest that the UK is unraveling from above and below. Increasing political disengagement and institutions under pressure is hardly a novel theme. Some might argue it’s an inevitable and strangely positive element of democratic politics that cannot be avoided. My concern – taken from a reading of the available data – is that healthy scepticism and institutional pressure have mutated into corrosive cynicism and institutional failure. The British way of ‘muddling through’ is no longer working but the dominant political culture seems unable to think of new ways of breathing life into politics. The contemporary and archetypal example of this is the planned ‘Renewal and Refurbishment’ of the Palace of Westminster. This will start after the 2015 General Election and is currently estimated to cost the British taxpayer somewhere between £2.5 and £4 billion. The link with political disengagement and the dominant political culture is that this massive investment in the machinery of democracy is not being used to redesign and modern Parliament but simply to replace like with like. Designing for democracy has not been embraced despite the fact that the current facilities and procedures are both dated and inadequate. Given the levels of public disengagement and frustration this may well turn out to be a missed opportunity. n
i
Matthew Flinders is Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics at the University of Sheffield and is Chair of the Political Studies Association of the UK.
This article was originally delivered as a public lecture at the British Library in London as part of their ‘Enduring Ideas’ series. The lecture is available as a podcast via
www.bl.uk/podcasts/podcasts/ podcast170150.mp3
SPRING 2015 SOCIETY NOW 13
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32