Democracy cannot wait for the ‘new generation’

The dangers that we face are only too well known. Globally, there is the increasing likelihood of a nuclear exchange; or the steady deterioration of the biosphere, with flooding of cities, wars over water, clamouring refugees. At the national level, the great issues are how to raise the poor; how to keep people in work; and how to preserve health systems, social services and pensions when so many societies are ageing so quickly. Our times could be dubbed the Age of Contraction. We know this because experts have produced libraries of reports and studies, specialist journalism and advocacy. The issues are at the centre of debate and polemic. That is what democracies do: clarify the issues, debate them and then have a government chosen by a majority take action. There is a flaw there, and it can be illustrated by the case of the British House of Lords. For much of the 20th century, it was a democratic disgrace. It was dominated by men and a few women who owed their position to the nobility of their name, their wealth or sometimes to a distinguished political, administrative or Anglican career. Only a minority were chosen on the basis of their experience and knowledge. New Labour fired most nobles, who must shuffle on without a club in which deferential servitors paid by the public are on hand to bow them in. In their place came appointed life peers. But the Lords was too convenient a reward for long service or open purses – and, indeed, for real distinction – for New Labour to go further. It remains, of course, wholly unelected. When he assumed the premiership two years ago, Gordon Brown gave notice that the Lords would be properly and democratically reformed. He has no hope of doing so before an election. If the Conservatives win, reform will be no priority: too much else of greater importance must come first.

Continue ...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2af32726-85f2-11de-98de-00144feabdc0.html