British democracy and devolution

by Charles Kennedy

People have lost trust in Tony Blair and Britain's sickly democracy, argues Liberal-Democrat leader Charles Kennedy in his book The future of politics.

True democracy - one in which every citizen partecipates - is a sickly child. If we continue to abrogate more of the business of government to Westminster and leave voting to the handful of citizens who still feel that it matters, then I fear for the future of politics. Elections will be fought over a series of increasingly narrow issues, based on a conviction that only by appealing to Middle England will people get elected. This happened in the 1997 election in the way both Labour and the Tories courted those with the most vested interest in paying less tax. We see it now, as William Hague trawls the country with the jingoistic cray of "save the pound", rather than embarass his supporters by talking about saving our inner cities. This approach assumes that politics is only about one thing: winning elections. Although it is true that politicians need to win elections to implement policies, we can become obsessed with the race, forgetting the prize at the end.

I entered politics because, like many of my peers, I had strong ideals. Over my 17 years in politics, my idealism has not abated but I have witnessed it withering away nationwide, to the point where, at least among the young, to have ideals is akin to being blinkered and old-fashioned. Before we can go to work on the nation's problems, we have to repair the mechanism for change. politicians have to restore a sense of idealism to politics. At the root of idealism is faith. To have ideals, one must have the faith that they are attainable. we therefore must have faith in the system that can make those ideals reality - faith in the political process. A crucial way to restore faith is to uphold in office the principles of integrity and honesty. If an MP is to be truly honest, it follows that his honesty should extend to admitting his or her mistakes. Non-politiciamns frequently have to admit to errors and if politicians were to follow suit, then a measure of public confidence would be restored.

The Prime Minister offers a case in point. It is interesting to look at how the public perceives Tony Blair today. When he became Prime Minister, one of his selling points was trust. He could hold out his hands to the people - and if you watch his early TV performances, that is the gesture he adopted. He could say to the British people, "Trust me", and by and large they believed him. But now, after three years of spin and the repackaging of old spending plans, the gloss has worn out. People are cynical about Mr Blair. Opposition politicians know this. We know that we can critisize the Government on the NHS and that whatever Mr Blair says to defend his record, the nation will not believe him. The people are losing faith and I take no pleasure in that.

When Labour first launched its famous "five pledges", my view was that they were likely to be delivered and that this would be a new dawn for British politics. But I have been proved wrong, because Labour has become obsessed with dressing up the facts and figures. At the next election, I am sure that Labour will tell people that they have delivered all five pledges. How refreshing it would be to hear a Labour politician say that they had delivered on two or three, but that they had to put forward new ideas to meet the remaining targets. Would such an admission not give people more faith in the political process? Politicians also have a duty to contribute to informed public debate. A well-developed public discourse, based on facts and principles and not hysteria, is a mark of a healthy society. The standard of debate on Europe suggests that we are far from healthy.

Politicians must also engage with the whole community, not just the informed parts of it. Until we can do so, we cannot claim to live in a democracy. Fighting over narrow issues means democracy fails. We won't tell the truth. We won't lead informed public debates. And we won't include the whole population. The danger is that with further disenchantment from politics, we may become a nation of cynics, losing any sense that collective action can make a difference. People will find that they can get by providing for their own and not worrying about others. All the "me and now" values that disfigured 1980s Britain will return.

Britain is becoming more authoritarian. Already in Jack Straw's Mode of Trial Bill, which seeks to limit the options for jury trials, we have witnessed the Government restricting our civil liberties. The same applies to freedom of information, where the Government has produced weak proposals that allow ministers greater powers to prevent citizens from finding out what is being done in their name. There can be no trust if politicians countinuosly seek to hide what they do. Genuine freedom of information legislation would give people greater confidence in the decisions taken on their behalf, because they would be able to find out what ministers were up t. Currently, if a British minister has a meeting with a politician from the US or the Irish Republic, it is easier to find out about it using Irish or American sources than British ones. How can that be healthy for the quality of our democracy?

As the Government increases its grip, there may be a further watering-down of Parliament's authority over Government. prime Minister's Question Time is a bearpit of confrontation. No Labour backbencher with aspirations can challenge the Government in Parliament if they wish to get anywhere. Our political culture is such that suggestions from other parties are rarely taken on board by the Government - and, to be fair, those initiatives are too often made only for the sake of party point-scoring.

Perhaps most worrying is that ministers choose to make their key announcements outside Parliament, holding MPs in contempt. No wonder that people see Parliament as irrilevant. We also have to tackle electoral reform. Our electoral system disenfranchises a large proportion of voters and practically compels them to lose interest in politics. The mother of one of my members of staff has voted for the Alliance or the Liberal Democrats since 1983. That is four general elections, elections for 16 local councilors, and four European elections. In each election, the party she voted for has gained between 13 and 31 per cent of the vote in her constituency. But her vote made no difference until 1999, when it helped to elect the Liberal Democrat MEP for Eastern England. All those years. All those votes. And finally, under a system of fairer votes, her voice was heard. But in that time how many people lost faith; that there was no point in voting because it doesn't change anything? Without fair votes for all elections, we cannot pretend to live in a democracy.

My key principle is a belief in liberty. Liberty is threatened from a variety of sources: inequality, instability, resistance to international co-operation, environmental hazards, to name a few. I chose to become involved in politics because I believed that, doing the right things, government can enhance and strenghten liberty. Now that sounds fairly abstract, but unless politicians find ways of articulating their principles, then the quality of our country's political conversation will be low. If we never talk about the basic beliefs, then it's no wonder that voters, and even commentators, ask: "What's it all about? Why do you bother?" How many people could say they know what Tony Blair's or William hague's key principles are? If politicians remind themselves why they are in politics and convey that to the public then it may become clear that, when they disagree, they are doing so over issues of principle, rather than sheer opportunism.