My publications My key sources COPYRIGHT > The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my con- sent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper ack- nowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as it source, namely > www.warrenevans.net
Special New Ideas Supplement Wednesday 20 February 2002
Building a new democracy Advocates, Trustees, and Questors
It is widely argued that "democracy" has had its day. Our conventional democratic institutions seem to be running out of steam, with growing voter apathy and low voting rates. Noone seems to be interested any more, in democratic politics.
But this argument misses the point. "Rule by the people" (lit. demo-cracy) takes many forms, and representative democracy is
only one of them.
Representative democracy, I agree, is running out of steam, in that it is failing to generate new ideas about the ordering of our society. But the process has served the people well. It started in the UK with the "Great" Reform Act of 1832, swept through to votes for all men (1867), the great Victorian reforms in working conditions and local government, then on to votes for all women (1929), in both local and national elections, and finally to Votes at 18. Its achievements should not be minimised. In its time, it emasculated the aristocracy
(though they are remarkably resilient, Labour has failed to finish them off, with its Lords Reform package) , it transformed the English class system
(though without eliminating it), it brought working people to power at Westminster, and it greatly strengthened the cause of equality in
inegalitarian England, notably in education and in health. That process has indeed, I agree, run its course.
But as political
ideas go, representative democracy in the UK had a good run - better than bloody revolution, of
the French type. And democratic election will remain the global touchstone of legitimacy throughout the world, despite
hanging chads and the Florida farce. Elective legitimacy will, I suspect, always be with us.
But the theme
has nothing more to give. Its inspirational stream has run dry. I support Votes at 16, which would be a wise reform. But otherwise, the "new" ideas now seem insubstantial (e.g. that there should be a literal equivalence between the composition of the electorate and the body of representatives e.g. More Women MPs, and that the Party balance should reflect more accurately, in some arithmetic sense, the overall voting-figures in an election i.e. Proportional Representation). And there are many situations where representative democracy simply offers no answer at all to intractable political problems
(Palestine, Cyprus, Northern
Ireland).
In the UK, representative democracy now means rule by a salaried cadre of perhaps 4,000 people [ See Oligarchy v. Autocracy ] That cadre is manifestly failing to inspire the young, and may even be losing the confidence of the old. New ideas are needed, if we are to bring the demos back into the governance of their society, as democracy demands. I have three ideas to throw into the political pot. They are - Advocates, Trustees and Questors.
We need a new advocacy profession, a third. They should be the "barefoot advocates" of society, not a highly-qualified and highly-paid legal profession, but a secondary para-legal profession whose practitioners would operate in the salary-bands of, say, teachers. Lawyers have become too expensive for their skills to be deployed widely, throughout society. Public
Advocates would be properly trained, and receive a professional qualification, albeit a minor one
(a one-year post-graduate diploma, or a longer course for non-graduates). Like solicitors, some would
work for public agencies, others would enter private practice. They would offer a realistically-priced alternative
to the mainstream solicitor/barrister system. They would have no rights of audience in the Courts
(though that might develop), they would write letters, mediate in simple cases,
explain to clients the Courts and the social-security system, appear before administrative tribunals
(and eventually before the lower civil courts) and pursue consumer complaints.
Some of this work is currently done by Citizens Advice Bureaux
(and many CABx Advisers would certainly wish to achieve this professional qualification). But the option of private practice would remove the service from the ever-present funding constraints of the CABx system. Given a supply of qualified and validated public advocates, other charitable and public agencies might themselves embark upon
the provision of such services. Each qualified practitioner would be entitled to use the style "Public Advocate" , just as the suffices Solicitor and Barrister-at-law are used.
Some might not consider this to be a "democratic" development in the conventional sense.
But I would beg to differ. Just as the Jury system, and the Lay Justices, are to be treasured as institutions which mobilise the personal involvement of citizens in the governance of their society, so a College of Public Advocates would extend active participation. That theme of active participation also runs through my next two suggestions.
The Voluntary Sector is a key component of our social order. And all the indications are that it is expanding. My Labour Government has signalled clearly its intention to support and further
encourage that expansion.
But it is also apparent that the necessary Board-level management skills are in short supply. This shortage is compounded by prohibition of remuneration for
charity trustees, in accordance with the principle that "a Trustee shall not benefit from his trust"
(which I do not seek to change). The need is to recruit more and younger Trustees, and to equip them for the
increasingly challenging demands of Trust direction. I believe that the Government should institute a
proper system of training for all Charity Trustees, just as public funds are found for training Justices of
the Peace, and CABx Advisers.
But there's more. I want to see each local electorate choose a panel of "Public Trustees", who would
(after the above training) be available for appointment to any charitable trust or similar communal organisation, whether in their own District or otherwise. Local Councillors would also be free to train, and gain
recognition as, Public Trustees".
Many citizens seek the opportunity of performing a public role, but do not wish to become involved in local "Party" political machines. This would meet that requirement. Further, in the absence of democratic election, it is all too easy for Trusts to become introverted and static, irremovable cliques that roll on for years and years. While I do not argue for the election of all Charity Trustees, I would like to see a proportion of such Trustees open to the possibility of electoral defeat, for putting up a poor performance, therefore sensitive to public opinion. It would act as a democratic leavening of the charity sector: the appointment of at least one qualified Public Trustee might in due course become a condition of public grant. The effect would be to enrich the democratic strands in the fabric of local life. It would be an enhancement of democracy.
This suggestion breaks new ground in a different way. With Public Advocates
and Public Trustees, I merely seek to re-deploy conventional concepts. But with Public Questors, I propose the
creation of a wholly new institution of public life.
Questors would be appointed (not elected) roughly at the rate of 1:100 of the population - that would mean 600,000 Questors for the whole UK population. That would in turn mean 6,500 Questors for South West Wales, which would be entirely reasonable. At the rate of one Questor for each hundred citizens, a new relationship between citizen and his system of governance could be established. Most elected Councillors represent over 4,000 voters, even Parish Councillors on average represent over 1,000. Questors, at 1:100, would have a far better chance of staying in touch with the people.
The aim would be to counter the sheer distance of modern government from its citizens. The old Anglo-Saxon "hundred" was based on the idea that a local leader could be expected to stay in touch with 100
families. A Questor would be a "public person" to whom citizens could turn for information about local systems generally, literally to ask questions, get public documents signed and witnessed. For the citizen,
Questors would constitute a new point of engagement and contact with the governing institutions of society. A code of conduct would seek to prevent the exploitation of the office of
Questor for Party political ends, although many Party members would quite properly be attracted to
the position.
Questors would be offered free training in all aspects of public institutions and their systems (the new National Curriculum "Civics" syllabus might well be appropriate). They would constitute a new front-line, in a system of public sign-posting. Local lists of
Questors would be published, and they would be entitled to bear the letters PQ after their name (for example, in the telephone directory).
Who would the Questors be? Noone would be appointed
Questor without giving
his or her express consent. Local Appointment Panels would operate on a confidential basis, although open to scrutiny by the Local Ombudsman. For
Questors, there would no remuneration or reimbursement of expenses. But with those provisos,
Questors might be drawn from a wide range of sectors. Those in elected office as Councillors
(County, District or Parish) would all be entitled to be Questors if they so wished.
So would certain other professionals,such as teachers, members of any medical profession, and
the various chartered professions.
Others in positions of public responsibility would be eligible for appointment
(e.g. at appropriate levels in the trade union movement, or trade or employers associations)
Others could, by success in examination, qualify as a Questor without other qualification.
It is not thought that policemen or lawyers should become Questors, because of conflicts of
role and interest: it is suggested that the same principle should apply as for
Jury Service selection. All those over the statutory retirement age would be
subject to regular review, without any right to reappointment.
The office of Questor
would be without precedent, but that should not deter us. The nearest equivalent would be
the Councillors of French communes, of whom there are about 500,000, spread
through 36,000 communes. The 600,000 Questors of the United Kingdom would be in
good company. What do you think?
Drop me a line.
