HAVING voted at every electoral opportunity presented to me over the past 55 years, I think I can say that in my opinion, democracy, as far as it goes, is a good idea! I question, however, if it goes far enough. Does a cross on the ballot paper every four or five years or so really allow me to express my opinions?
I am in the process right now of reading Sorted: A Handbook for a Better Scotland, the document by the Common Weal independence pressure group outlining how, in its opinion, an independent Scotland could be organised. Hardly bedtime reading, but certainly an interesting and stimulating piece of work!
They suggest democracy could be enhanced via greater individual and local participation through the creation of additional layers of government ultimately drawing on local opinion and, where appropriate, feeding these ideas upwards to inform national policy. This, I believe, is based on the model which works currently in Scandinavian countries.
READ MORE: Yes side may welcome UK Government ‘monkeying about' with democracy
Undoubtedly an idea worth detailed investigation, but not everyone has the time, ability or enthusiasm to meet up in groups formed to advise on policy creation or to reflect on the effectiveness of existing policies.
Regardless, everyone has a right to have their opinions heard, and have their needs and view-points responded to. Even those who might choose not to vote!
An effective working democracy should serve the needs of everyone, not only the vociferous or politically minded section of our citizenry.
I think I first heard the expression “focus group” in the 1990s when the Labour Party seemed to be determined to understand national opinion. Groups which, as far as possible, represented a broad range of national opinion were asked to give their views. The philosophy was “you speak – we listen”. This seemed to be a novel idea. Then, as perhaps now, politicians would normally listen to outside views only when the groundswell of public opinion could no longer be ignored. Remember the poll tax!
READ MORE: By-election to be held in Edinburgh after shock SNP resignation
Why do we not ask the public how they feel on a range of issues passed by parliament? One way forward might be to set up an independent “Public Opinion Commission” (We already have, for example, an Office for Budget Responsibility – not to seek public opinion, but to comment as to whether the budgetary sums add up!).
On various key aspects of policy voted through by parliament, this Public Opinion Commission could be asked through a range of strategies to seek our views. This research should not be a simple “do you agree with this policy?” But could be along the lines of “this policy was proposed for the following reasons a, b c etc, what are your views?”
The results of this research should then be published and made public. I am not suggesting a referendum on every issue, but our views should be known.
I might not necessarily want to vote against a party which in my opinion is going largely in the right direction, but on the points where I do not agree I want them to know.
READ MORE: Hereditary peer breaks rules to make £57k from his Lords seat
I often hear politicians respond to questions with statements like “what British people really want to know is” or “want us to do is” etc. In response to this, I often cause damage to my vocal cords by screaming at the TV “how do you know what the British public really want to know?!!””
Assuming that the polling sample whose views are sought by the Public Opinion Commission reflects the broad range of the public, then it is more likely that the views of those with similar opinions to myself would be heard by our political masters, and less easy to ignore.
It just might, as Burns says, “frae mony a blunder free us.”
Democracy should be about more than simply voting in an election every five years.
Alex Leggatt
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here