Death of Politics : Questions and Answers (F.A.Q.'s)

This criticism rests on a confusion as to the meaning of democracy. Democracy  may be thought of as only existing :

• when each section of society has its representatives  in the institutions of government or
• when government institutions fully represent the views and needs of  the disparate  sections of society

If you believe that democracy can only exist when  political  representatives have to consist of a cross-section of society, then  the New Polity’s  personality requirements for MPs abrogate democratic principles. The bigots, the crooks, the morally weak, the stupid, the plain nasty will never make it into the New House, and those who will are, by definition, an elite.

But democratic representation defined in this way is not a fruitful approach to solving the problems faced by governments, for stupid MPs are likely to arrive at stupid solutions, the bigots base their solution on hatred and bias, the crooks will principally seek solutions profitable to themselves and the plain nasty will leave no lie unstated and no manipulation untried in their eagerness for power, regardless of the problems to be solved.

Democratic representation is better defined in terms of  the goals of democratic institutions. If Parliament is  concerned to do its best for every group in society, without favour, then it can be said to be truly representational of  all society’s interests and needs, and democratic in its actions and aims.

At the heart of the New Polity is a conviction that if you allow everyone the right to   become an MP, only those who are most determined and persistent in their efforts to succeed are likely to make it, and these are not necessarily best fitted to be problem-solvers.  The result is a classic example of market forces not necessarily resulting in good for society. The experience of British Government over the last two hundred years does not give the nation  much confidence that these self-selected  MPs have everybody’s interests equally at heart. 

The nation already does precisely this. There is a great deal of convincing research evidence that most electors are extremely hazy about party policies, even at election times when policies should be at their sharpest.

Equally there is plenty of evidence that the parties themselves are extremely hazy about their policy  intentions on many, if not the majority, of issues that will become important over the period of their governing/opposition.

In any case, there is a growing consensus of opinion that policy-differences between the parties are decreasing dramatically: there is a growing consensus about solutions to the nation’s problems.

Finally, the  manifestos of opposition parties are rarely well-informed enough to know what policy options are open to them. Manifestos of such parties are, thus, either dream-wishes or lies, sometimes both.

The same concern must have been expressed when such national institutions as the armed forces, the judiciary and the police force were set up, not to mention MI5 and other more clandestine organisations. Yet each of these institutions, properly briefed and properly mandated by the electorate via government, do their job without ruling us.

 The Office of the Guardians will only expedite the wishes of the electorate as they select those considered fit to become New MPs. The Guardians, in their selection of candidates for the New House, apply a screening process which establishes  the existence of  a personality profile pre-determined by the will of the electorate. The Office of the Guardians serve, rather, as a recruitment agency.

If  social policy was determined by the Office then they would certainly be a centre of power.

Of course, there must be occasions when the personality qualities sought are measured  by the attitudes expressed by the applicants towards policy issues. If, for example, I  express a view that all criminals should either be shot or emasculated, that is likely to influence the opinions of the Guardians concerning my qualities of dispassion, integrity and concern for humanity. Policy-views and personality inevitably interact. But the Guardians are overwhelmingly concerned  to determine the applicants basic character, not his views on policy issues.

The reforms are based on the view that  the electorate’s current interest in government decisions is directly proportional to the trust it has in government. The less the trust, the greater the interest because of the greater anxiety. If you trust your local doctor, you feel your medical fitness is in safe hands. If you trust politicians, you are likely to feel that they will try to take the  best decisions for the benefit of the whole society. The nation’s current profound distrust in all politicians results in a great interest in political affairs. A future lack of involvement is NOT the same as indifference. It should simply reflect a greater trust by the electorate in government.  

None. The New Polity does not postulate greater competence in government, though a profound instinct suggests that the changes recommended are likely to result in improvements.

The New Polity attempts to take out one major element of risk out of the formula for successful government: the risk incurred by failing to screen potential Members of Parliament on any criteria. A failure to screen out the incurably selfish, the incurable megalomaniacs, the  politically ignorant, those who are largely indifferent to social pain and deprivation, those who are too stupid to understand the basics of economic planning, those who are hostile to a multitude of  sub-groups of society, those who are racist, xenophobic, anti-religious, sexists and ageist and so on, is likely - a priori - likely to distort policy making in government.

The establishment of  that character profile which is demanded by the nation for  all  its future MPS  will provide a bench-mark which the electorate can more readily trust than the random, applicant-centred profile that currently applies. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, research physicists and, increasingly, businessmen have to prove their competence credentials before they are allowed to practice their disciplines. The New Polity believes that  the  assessment of  the competence criteria for our governors requires  a mix of information-base and personality criteria, if they are to result in better decision-making capabilities in our political institutions.

The bulk of  today’s key social and political problems need a long-term view in their resolution. The current five-year span of government  means that, on average, every government is jut two and a half years away from re-election. That guarantees only a very short-term view of social and political solutions. The twelve-year cycle means that the average view of government increases to at least six years.

In any case, the history of political institutional life-spans has been dominated by  intrinsic distrust of government, and the prevailing view has, in consequence, been ‘the shorter, the better’. The New Polity attempts to remove this distrust from politics.
As over 70% of MPs have safe seats in the House, the five-year span is  a misleading concept. Most MPs can look forward to thirty years in the House, once they have managed to acquire the candidacy of such seats.