Much has been written about the state of the nation.
Among the issues which are regarded as critical, besides economic well-being, is the level of political engagement.
Recent indicators suggest the political health of the nation is nearing critical level.
A view which is confirmed by the low turnout at general, mayoral, regional assembly, local council
and European elections. People are not turning out to vote, and indifference towards politics seems to
be on the increase. Within this climate of apathy towards the political process by the people,
various initiatives to solve the problems have been mooted, from lowering the voting age to allowing voters
to text message their votes. Yet these knee jerk responses by politicians require further scrutiny -
do these initiatives really address the key concerns that turn people off from the political process?
1997 saw the Labour landslide few commentators would have predicted a decade earlier.
Labour was, prior to the Blair revolution, 'unelectable' and the Conservative Party remained far and away the
'party of government'. Yet the Blairite strategy paid off and Britain was promised 'things can only get better'
after years of 'Tory misrule'. Despite the fanfare that accompanied the New Labour win, only 71.5%
of the electorate voted. That may seem like a high turnout compared to most local or European elections,
but it was the lowest turnout for a general election since 1935. Worse was to come,
the election which delivered Labour its second term in 2001 had a turnout of 59.38%.
Therefore it cannot solely be regarded as a historic moment for New Labour;
it also marked the lowest electoral turnout since 1918.
In 1918 the excuse of a newly enfranchised electorate not used to voting could be used as a justification
for the low turnout, but what is the reason for the voter apathy today?
A BBC poll immediately after the 2001 result suggested that those who had decided not to vote did so because
they felt disconnected from the political process. 77% said they did not believe voting changed anything,
65% attributed their apathy to mistrust of politicians, and just over half believed a Labour victory was inevitable.
Voting patterns according to age are dire across the board, but among the 18-24 age group, only 38% planned to vote.
A recent YouGov poll for The Sun newspaper found that only 26% were interested in who governs Britain.
The figure is lower when it comes to local and European Parliament elections.
Some politicians such as the Lord Chancellor, Lord Faulkner have tried to brush these indicators under the carpet.
He believes that people who are happy in general with the way the country is being run are less likely
to be moved to the ballot box and therefore a low turnout is a sign of a contented electorate rather
than a disgruntled one. He obviously has not mingled recently with the great unwashed and heard first hand
how things are not as rosy as he likes to make out. The stance of his cabinet colleagues and indeed the
Prime Minister himself suggests they do not accept this disingenuous claim.
Indeed, politicians are worried about voter apathy but what have they put forward as solutions to
solve the widening disenchantment with party politics?
Tony Blair commissioned a report into the possibility of lowering the age of political
consent. The Electoral commission investigated the issue by speaking to a number of interested parties but advised
against lowering the voting age to 16. According to the Independent newspaper,
Labour is set to ignore its advice and include a pledge to lower the voting age in its election manifesto.
It is believed that 16 year olds are more interested in politics than their older counterparts because the
climate over the last few years has affected them. The war on Iraq, environmental concerns,
implications to liberty of ID cards and the dangers of GM foods amongst other similar issues worry this
age group as it does 18-24 year olds, yet the latter age group has not moved closer to party politics but
has embraced 'alternative politics'. They have joined pressure groups such as Amnesty and attended marches
and demonstrations including some against the war on Iraq. Young people, like older people,
feel just as betrayed by the politicians. Gimmicks have been offered such as saving people the trouble
of walking to the local polling station by allowing them to send postal votes,
text messaging and polling booths in pubs.
The people who want to vote and seek a more convenient alternative to access the polling booth will
utilise these gimmicks, but the majority of people are apathetic and by not voting are sending a message to
their political masters, therefore this will not remove the reasons for which they have chosen to
disengage from party politics.
The success of reality TV shows such as 'Pop Idol', 'Big Brother' and
'I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here' have prompted ITV chiefs to commission reality politics show.
'Vote for Me' presented ten candidates to the public telephone vote;
the successful candidate will stand for a constituency in the next general election.
The fact that ITV scheduled this show in a 10:30pm time slot is an indication that is not looking for
ratings as big as the entertainment shows.
No wonder people are apathetic.
The perception of politicians as deceitful, untrustworthy and let's face it downright dishonest has
not arisen without reason. This picture of politicians is fuelled by their duplicitous conduct.
In opposition, the Labour party attacked the Tories for their failure to translate promises into
practice with regards to Education, the Health Service and Crime,
yet the Labour party has not fared any better with its election promises and has relied on reminding
the country of the years of Tory misrule which seven years later are still blamed for ruining
Britain's public services. The Conservative party in opposition is used to mocking Labour duplicity,
but once they return to power and the fiscal realities are their responsibility,
they too will break their promises and the cat and mouse game will start again.
The failure to listen to the people has also undermined confidence in party politics.
When over one million marched against joining the 'coalition of the killing'
led by the US against Iraq, the government ignored this unprecedented public response.
The public were ignored, yet big businesses such as British Petroleum were regularly consulted.
It seems as though the vote of a million plus counts for little set against the influence of multinational companies.
On the eve of war, British companies were fearful of losing out on their slice of the
Iraq cake at the expense of US competitors if the British government did not back America's crusade.
Publicly, the British government claimed to back the American position in
Iraq because of the danger of a rogue regime, which possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),
which endangered the region and British interests. Yet WMDs have not been found,
and the Bush administration has accepted that their intelligence on this was wrong.
The call for an independent inquiry into the validity of intelligence on the Iraqi threat has been ignored.
Instead a whitewash of a report by Lord Hutton has provided politicians the cover of credibility.
The Prime Minister shocked many when he launched the inquiry into the events surrounding the death of
government scientist David Kelly. Lord Hutton, despite investigating widely,
was at pains to make clear his remit did not allow for a wider investigation than the death itself.
His inquiry's terms of reference were narrow so as not to infer blame on politicians; instead the BBC took the rap.
This further fed the public distrust and apathy toward politicians.
The politicians continually avoid being blamed, and initiatives are often launched to hide the failure of policy.
The Chancellor's spending is kept to 'prudent' levels until election year when a feel good factor needs to be
manufactured in order to elevate the artificial successes of the government. How can this lead to anything but apathy?
When people fail to turn up to vote come Election Day, they are saying that they do not believe
that their vote changes anything. Ken Livingstone, the erstwhile Labour rebel, once wrote
'If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it', yet this has not prevented him from standing as an MP,
as well as for London Mayor. Despite the fact that democracy in Britain claims to place the people in control,
this control is in name only. Real power does not reside with 'mob rule', as democracy was once looked upon,
and the people know this. Government of whatever shade acts in the interests of big business to the extent
that they have a disproportionate control over policy making and ultimately the legislation that is passed.
In conclusion, apathy is a huge problem today and will increasingly be so in the future.
The answer to this problem is not ‘dumbing down’ and voting by text;
it should be to promote more honest politicians and cut the bitching between parties.
Is there much apathy where you are? What do you think the solutions are?
|
