The Argument for Assembly4Reform

Today, 1 July 2016, we remember the slaughter and tragedy of the Somme. The sheer number of innocents slain, is I hope, well known to us all. When I woke my 7 year son this morning at 7am, and felt his warm body in my arms and his waking eyes focused on mine, I thought of all those kids 100 years ago today who would have woken, unknowing that their fathers were about to die and would never again hold them as they wake to a new dawn. I took him to school in Bow, East London – the same school where those kids 100 years ago today would have walked though those same gates and into the same classrooms, as their fathers valiantly charged into an arena of hell never to be seen again. The thought is so horrific – grasp if you can 60,000 casualties of which at least 20,000 slain – in a single day of horror. It dwarfs us all into asking why? Why was this (conflict) allowed to escalate to an apocalypse? To simply refer to it as the futility of war is abhorrent. And to watch the Remembrance ceremony, heralded parodoxically by the firing of cannons – the same canons that took part in this hell on earth, was sickening. Of course we must never forget the sacrifices made, but God help us all if this is all we have learnt in 100 years; God help my son to find a better way of saving mankind from the folley of war. They fought and died to protect democracy but what system of democracy was it that resulted in an armageddon of such magnitude. It was the same Parliamentary Democracy that we have today. It should never have been so. If war and democracy, as we new it then, and as it is now, are inseparable, then surely we must challenge the very foundations of our parliamentary system of government; of how representative democracy works.

To underscore the frailness of our democratic system we need look no further than the debacle that was last week’s National Referendum, resulting in our country’s electorate being split on a crucial decision. Again I say, it should never have come to this; this confrontation, this warring conflict? Why wait to ask a nation through a referenda, what should have been apparent if we had a system in place where the views of everyone of us were known sooner through ‘grass-roots’ community involvement? Shouldn’t we have debated and resolved such issues as the current EU/IN/OUT at a local level rather let it fester and escalate to a national conflict and global economic instability. It also highlighted the glaring and frightening reality that the people – the electorate, have no say in who governs them at Ministerial level. That decision is made by a small group of party politicians without recourse to their electorate.

The political turmoil following the Referendum has yet again uncovered the ugly, seamier side to our political administration. We all know it exists but like pawns in a Game of Thrones, meekly accept it as part of our culture, in a frightening Orwellian sense. We’re aware there is misuse/abuse of power; power wielded by those we have (in most cases) elected into high office. When exposed, it makes depressing reading not least because it drives home how ineffective we are in preventing it from taking place. For example, at the highest level we seemed powerless to prevent Government pressing ahead with their NHS bill while they flouted public opposition and legal orders to publish the ‘Risk Report’.  At a Local Council level, we cringed after reading  constant revelations concerning the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Mayor. (He was finally removed from office for electoral fraud and malpractice only after years of public pressure and a High Court order). The reality is, we have little influence over politicians once they are in office.

There are of course many other cases that illustrate how easy it is for those entrusted with authority and responsibility through our electoral system to slither into the gutter of self glorification and corruption as they disengage with their often huge electoral launch pad. Our politicians all too often assume an air of unaccountability and permanence once they’ve wormed their way into a 4 year term of office. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the immortal words of William Pitt the Elder, “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it”, and that truism is no less relevant today than it was almost 250 years ago. In describing these individuals, I personally rather warm to the more current expression eloquently delivered by Dame Judy Dench in the James Bond thriller, ‘Quantum of Solace’ when she referred to a particularly unwholesome rogue as a ‘slimy bastard’. But then, I do feel strongly about the demise of honesty and integrity in our society. Surely democracy can provide the people of this nation with an alternative to the traditional parliamentary system of adversarial politics that so effortlessly accommodates secrecy, deception and abuse of power. I put to you; the mother of parliamentary democracy has reached an age when it is no longer fit for purpose. We have to remember, it is based on an unwritten constitution that was suitable for a country of just over 4 million people with all its historic social inequalities of the time, coupled with quill pen and parchment paper communication.

Society has changed dramatically over 400 years yet we cling to a political system that operates much as it did in the 1600’s. It’s time for us to realise that there is now a workable alternative, albeit draconian from the viewpoint of our traditional parliamentarian process, that has as yet never been applied anywhere in the world. It’s time for this country to become the mother of community assembly democracy.

So, what if…

..we were able to replace political parties and career politicians at all levels with best-in-class professionals, hired (and fired) under professional performance contracts, and selected using best practice techniques, by regional and central assemblies formed from community representation?

In outline, we’ll consider a grass-roots [sic] example of how such a system could work in practice. Take the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (total 20 Wards, population approximately 300,000) and take a Ward of say 15,000 registered electors. Using the existing electoral register, 30 assembly men/women would be selected from the 15,000, in a similar way to the selection criteria for Jury Service. The 30 would form the Community Assembly for the Ward. As with Jury Service, attendance on the Assembly would be a civic duty. This would provide a representation radio of approximately 1:500. Current local government representation is 1:7500, and central government representation is a staggering 1:103681. Keep in mind that even at these levels, current elected local and central government representation is focused on party political expedients -strategic issues – above community concerns.

Two members from each Ward would be selected by the Assembly to sit on the Borough Assembly. Assembly service would be for a 6 month term with 5 members rotated each month to ensure dynamic continuity and a rolling ground-up representation process. Using the same approach, London’s (32) Boroughs would provide representatives to a London Assembly, and all UK’s Counties, together with the London Assembly would provide representatives to a central Assembly of State. At each level, executives would be hired (as referred above) to best represent the interests of their respective Assemblies.

The principle is simple – no political parties, no politicians, no adversarial politics in a parliamentary chamber of government versus opposition; a nation truly administered by the people for the people. But, are we prepared to make the commitment to be directly involved in administering our own society? Are we as individuals – nation builders? or do we still need to be led like lemmings, nurtured on a culture of leadership?

There is an interim measure we can apply to test our resolve. Paradoxically the vehicle for this was legislated by David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Their White Paper, ‘Open Public Services’ advocates decentralising and devolving power to the lowest appropriate level. In practical terms this means the ability to establish local community councils as a statutory body. In Tower Hamlets they could be established within each Ward of the Borough. The National Association of Local Councils (NALC) web site states, ‘NALC offers a bursary scheme for London campaign groups that want to create a new local council in their area. Campaign groups can apply for funds to cover reasonable costs incurred for their meetings’.

With this incentive, a Borough wide campaign can be started to install grass-root representation at local government level. As I say, this is only a starting point, and is no quick fix to the abuses of power we have to witness on an almost daily basis. But it will have an impact locally and be the foundation for non elected Assemblies in the future.

This is the beginning of a national debate on democratic reform. Follow Assembly4Reform on Twitter@a4reform for the latest news and to track developments.

Note: Linked to Steemit  July 2016