Never mind the quantity -March 18, 2005

By Jonathan Bartley

If the impending General Election bears any resemblance to the last one, only two-thirds of us will participate in it.

The vast majority of winning candidates will get to Westminster with the support of less than half of those who vote in any given constituency. Consequently, less than one quarter of the population which is legally sane, over 18, and without a criminal record will consciously choose the Government.

The deepening democratic deficit in the UK is interpreted in negative terms, and attributed to a cocktail of apathy and cynicism — as the system depends upon mass participation for its legitimacy. Campaigns are launched to register voters and persuade them that their cross will count. The assumption that flexing political muscle through the ballot box is a virtuous exercise goes largely unchallenged.

But, as the theologian John Howard Yoder has said, non-participation in elections can be a form of both Christian witness and political action.

The reason is that a trip to the polling station implies support for the system. Whether it be the fledgeling democracy of Iraq or the mother of parliaments in the UK, when people go to the polls they reinforce both the way that a particular version of politics is being undertaken, and the values on which it is based. Non-participation, on the other hand, can send a political message that change to the system is needed.

Other Christian thinkers have written about the inherent flaws in democracies. Leo Tolstoy highlighted the simple yet profound truth that democratic systems allow majorities to impose their will on minorities. (The opposite can also be true.) More proportional systems of voting can go some way to mitigating such consequences. However, high turnouts do little to persuade governments to introduce them: after its landslide win in 1997, Labour failed to follow through its manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on proportional representation.

The proportional systems that have been introduced — for example, in Scotland and Wales — are ones that favour the party machines that select candidates centrally, using mega-constituencies rather than small areas. Voting therefore does little to challenge the narrow set of values underlying the issues over which the parties do battle.

Should debates about Europe be conducted primarily in terms of Britain’s self-interest? Should the focus of the criminal-justice system be punishment rather than restoration? It is hard to find any candidate who will engage seriously with such questions.

Recent TV advertisements have implied that those who fail to vote are not just failing in their political duty, but forfeit any right to speak on political matters. On his retirement, Tony Benn had an answer to this. He was leaving the House of Commons, he said, “to concentrate on politics”. His statement highlighted the idolatry, arrogance and myopia of the claim that politics is primarily about what takes place in the House of Commons.

Mr Benn was convinced that movements change things far more than political leaders. Politicians are limited to fighting over the narrow ground determined by a much wider debate. Change the external political agenda, and you change both the boundaries in which politicians operate and the decisions they will make.

A healthy democratic society is not one where people come out in large numbers to vote. It is one where the political systems and agendas can be challenged and changed.

This article appeared in the Church Times