In the interests of democracy, and a much needed reconnection between the people and their Parliament, I can understand why ConservativeHome has given weight to new “ideas to control underperforming politicians between elections” and supported the 27 MPs of the 2005 intake who want consideration to be given to constituents having the power to "recall" Members of Parliament between elections. However, this thoroughly American suggestion comes with major flaws, most notably, that the removal of “underperforming” or “unethical” MPs will ultimately be led by a majoritarian public view, which is not always the right view. Will it feed into what John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville argued would be “a tyranny of the majority” in democratic culture?
Principles of accountability are completely useless when it is the editors of national newspapers within a public conformist culture driving which MPs stay and which one’s don’t. The press really can make a meal of one MP inside or outside Parliament if they so choose. After the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee has concluded, the mechanism might finally end with the sacking of the MPs who speak what they perceive to be the truth on political matters; while the ‘Yes Men’ MPs, who say what the public/press want to hear, will be let off. We don’t need a Big Brother scenario because that is what makes a Parliament redundant and unable to decide on real issues, however difficult the concerns may be. I foresee that the press will wield ever increasing power whilst Parliament and ultimately the people will surrender it, and the people will not thank the Conservative Party or Parliament for it in the future.
The consideration in the UK given to creating a recall mechanism, “similar to that used in some US states, to enable constituents to vote on whether they remove their MP during the course of a Parliament” (as the 27 MPs have suggested) could lead to a disconnection with the people, not better democracy at all. It is a perverse truth that on the way to achieving democracy, you can really end up trashing its best features. A general election is one thing; this accountability mechanism may turn out to be an excuse for knocking off some Mr. Unfavourable in what might be seen as a sub-election on a vote over something entirely more cynical than his/her suitability as a Member of Parliament.
I appreciate that a lot of this boils down to your view on direct democracy – which I think must always be balanced if we are to take advantage of any of its benefits.
It also boils down to what the future Conservative plans are to deal with “naughty MPs”. Do we just get rid of them (by which I mean sacking, not hanging)? Do we reform them? Should they have their pay slashed as a penalty? But, against the backdrop of press and public constantly harassing MPs with such measures, could we really expect them to legislate effectively on our behalf? My point then is this: laws are probably best not made under conditions in which MPs have themselves become compelled to be pawns of the majority's views.
