Cicero pointed all this out most eloquently. As a philosopher he thought things through carefully and deeply and then expressed his ideas clearly, giving plenty of reasons and examples.
The great Roman orator, lawyer, politician, philosopher and author, Cicero has left us a great legacy. He wrote on many topics that are as relevant today as they were when he dictated them to his trusted slave, Tiro.
Tiro was a gifted and hard working person in his own right – he invented a form of shorthand and left a good deal of written material that has survived. He was given his freedom by Cicero but chose to continue working for him. One piece of work dictated by Cicero concerns the good and bad motives people may have. He considered how becoming feared and becoming liked can both bring benefits, but the first is dangerous while the second is not.
When a person is feared, they may find a wide circle of supporters to do their bidding. Think in terms of Vladimir Putin, generally the people around him do his bidding because they do not wish to fall from a high window or drink poisonous tea. There are plenty of people who have died or nearly died because they have crossed Putin in some way – from Sergei Skripal to Yevgeny Prigozhin. Many political opponents have died while imprisoned. Examples like these cause others in Putin’s circle to be carefully obedient. Yet Putin himself is always in danger and must live under a permanent cloud, fearful that at any moment he will be toppled from power and most likely be murdered in the process.
On the other hand, live a life in which you are surrounded by friends who love you because of your kindness and thoughtfulness, and you will also have a wide circle to work with you and for you, but you will have far fewer anxieties, fears, and sleepless nights.
Cicero pointed all this out most eloquently. As a philosopher he thought things through carefully and deeply and then expressed his ideas clearly, giving plenty of reasons and examples. What Cicero must have realised (but did not express) is that most of us, most of the time, are feared by some yet liked by others. Cicero himself was no exception. He had political enemies and was murdered by the roadside as he attempted to flee from Italy.
There are three ways to learn more about Cicero, and it’s well worth doing so. Many of his arguments are as interesting and useful today as they were two thousand years ago (we would write 2000, Tiro would have written MM).
One way is to read Cicero’s writings for yourself. Much has been lost no doubt, but much has been preserved too – often thanks, in part, to Tiro. A second way is to read what historians and commentators have written about him. The third way, and perhaps the one that is most fun, is to read Robert Harris’s famous and fascinating Cicero trilogy. Yes, it’s fiction; but it’s skillfully woven around what we know of the characters portrayed.
Imagine what might happen if we abolished general elections altogether. I invite you to consider the idea of 20% of parliamentary seats coming up for re-election annually, or perhaps 10% every six months.
No system of elections lasts for all time. As society and government change, so too must the system by which members of parliament (MPs) are chosen. There have been many changes over the years, women’s suffrage for example for a large, notable change; alterations to constituency boundaries as an example of minor changes that take place at intervals as thought necessary. And there’s been talk for decades now about proportional representation (PR) of one kind or another. It’s good to talk things over, good to remain open to change.
The House of Commons in division, 2012 – From Wikimedia
There must be a clear reason for any change. Change for change’s sake would be irrational and a waste of resources; change is costly so should come often enough, but not too often. A good place to start thinking about this is to identify issues with the current system and imagine some ways of addressing them. The next step would be to consider the cost effectiveness and drawbacks of those possible approaches.
In this short essay I’d like to think through an alternative to general elections. One disadvantage of a general election is that it may result in no significant change if the existing party and prime minister return to power, or it may cause a huge sea-change of policy and a completely new cabinet when party and prime minister are defeated and a whole, new government comes to power. A by-election, on the other hand, rarely defeats a government, though it may usefully influence policy by making public opinion clearer.
A better approach
Is there some way we could reduce the sometimes damaging flip-flop of U-turn changes of government on the one hand, and the tired persistence of stale policies on the other, while at the same time increasing the effectiveness of public opinion? Yes, I believe there is. It’s been staring us in the face for decades. It’s an idea that deserves attention and some public debate, and now would be as good a time as any to take an initial look.
Just suppose
Imagine what might happen if we abolished general elections altogether. I invite you to consider the idea of 20% of parliamentary seats coming up for re-election annually, or perhaps 10% every six months. MPs would continue to serve a term of five years, as they do at the moment. This would provide local stability in which constituents could become familiar with their local MP just as at present. But it would also provide strong (and useful) public feedback to a sitting government in terms of popularity of policies and personalities.
I favour the 10% every six months approach, or even 5% every three months. It would be a bit like 65 (or 32) by-elections at regular intervals. The period chosen could be still finer at 11 seats per month or, say, 1 or 2 per week. These choices should be debated along with the principle of shifting from the current system to a new method. A system like this could work with or without PR, of course. Personally I favour some form of PR, but it might be wise to keep the debates and the decisions separate from one another, not least to reduce the complexity of any proposed change and to enable a more focussed approach in debate and in any votes taken, either in parliament or by the electorate. There would be many details to be thought through.
Are there any parliaments or similar bodies around the world where a proportion of the seats come up for re-election at intervals? I’m not aware of any, but a system similar to the one I propose here is used for some local authority elections in Britain where a half or one third of the councillors are re-elected each time. So we do have some experience to inform us on how elections of this kind perform and, perhaps, how voter behaviour might change in such a system.
Moving towards a new system
What steps are required and how might this idea be taken forward?
Clearly, there would need to be a good deal of debate first. What would be the best choice of frequency at which a proportion of seats should be re-elected? How might we choose the seats? What advantages and disadvantages might we foresee for the new system, and how would it compare with the current arrangement of General Elections every five years?
My suggestion, already mentioned, would be to go for small changes at frequent intervals. This would involve more modest and less disruptive changes at Cabinet level for example, with just a few members of the cabinet facing an election each time. Sixty-five seats would be up for re-election every six months, or thirty-two every three months. Frequent elections would provide finer-grained but less disruptive changes in Parliament. Voters would be able to apply only gentle pressure to a governing party, but it would be pressure reapplied quite often. The government of the day would need to ensure voters remained content with their policies.
Seats for re-election could be chosen randomly or in some other way that would be easy to decide (but not favour a particular political party or region). So in one tranche, thirty-two seats would be re-elected and six months later a further thirty-two. Five years later the same tranches would come up once again.
Once all the ideas and issues had been carefully considered, recommendations could be made and a bill written and presented for debate. Like any other bill this would need approval from the Commons and the Lords.
How to make the change from the current system of General Elections to the new arrangement would also need a good deal of thought and debate. Many seats would have to come up for re-election earlier or later than normal. It might be possible for an intial batch of seats to be re-elected after four and a half years and another batch after five and a half with the bulk remaining at five years. Then at a later General Election these seats could shift by a further six months and two more tranches brought in so that gradually, General Elections would become smaller and smaller as a larger proportion of seats shifted to the new system.
Initial steps
I think I’ve gone into enough detail for the time being. I’d like to see a wider debate on this with plenty of thoughts and opinions from others. I’ll do what I can to get that started. Meanwhile, if you’d like to comment on this article please do; I’d love to hear what you think.
It’s a ship that will continue to take on water and is likely to founder and disappear for ever
I rarely make any political comment here on JHM, largely because I don’t want to annoy or alienate a significant fraction of my readers. This blog is about other aspects of life.
But sometimes events demand some sort of response. This is such a time.
The Conservative party is in a state of confusion right now. The parliamentary party is clearly rejecting Boris Johnson as leader and Prime Minister, and the electorate is hugely critical of the party (recent byelection results illustrate that).
I believe two things need to happen as soon as possible.
First, the party must find a way to remove Johnson from his leadership position in the next few days or weeks, and they must elect a new leader and form a new cabinet and all the government machinery that goes along with that. So much is self-evident.
Secondly, they must call a general election as soon as possible.
They will need to do that because giving senior cabinet positions to people who supported Johnnson’s leadership for such a long time, knowing that he was – well, let’s say ‘a bit dodgy’ – is not going to pass muster with the general public. And it’s hard to see how a new government can be formed without including a significant number of tainted heavyweights.
Johnson has tarred himself with his own brush, but in the process he’s managed to splash quite a few of those around him with black marks. Not that they didn’t object to his behaviour, but that they supported him as Prime Minister for such a long time. I understand the difficulty, nobody wants to be the first to climb, suicidally, out of the trenches.
Somebody wrote recently that the sinking ship has abandoned the rat. Very witty, but it’s still a sinking ship. It’s a ship that will continue to take on water and is likely to founder and disappear for ever.
We need a new government, whether Conservative or otherwise. The electorate needs an opportunity to replace any MP they regard as tainted and untrustworthy. Two years is too long for a seriously damaged party to continue in power. Only a general election as soon as possible can remove the remaining spots and streaks of tar.
Most, including the crew, agree that we need a new captain, but we also need a new ship.
Journeys of Heart and Mind 