Written by Daniel Towse

Charter88 believe that voting is central to democracy, and true in most peopleís lives is that it is probably their only political act. Their aim is to find a system that allows everyone to be represented fairly and gives a voice to minorities because our first-past-the-post system distorts the wishes of the people.

Charter88 is in the view point that the Government seems intent on creating a largely appointed House of Lords, despite calls for a truly democratic upper House from within the Labour Party, other parties, and the majority of the country. The House of Commons reform has been too slow, with the Government resisting the urgent need to address the imbalance in power between the Executive and Parliament.

Since 1997 the Conservative Party has been questioning whether the constitutional system which they claimed was so perfect while they were in Government, really is so democratic now they are in opposition. However, Lord Jenkins' comment on parties' fluctuating interest in electoral reform can be applied to the wider constitutional agenda. He said that:

"Their desire to improve the electoral system has tended to vary in inverse proportion to their ability to do anything about it."

The Liberal Democrats have traditionally been the party whose programme has been closest to that of Charter88. However, even here there is room for improvement. In autumn 2000 we saw the undignified sight of Liberal Democrat peers doing a deal with the Government to support an inadequate freedom of information Bill which, days previously, they had condemned. This was an opportunity missed, despite their Lordships' protestations that they secured the best that could be achieved. Therefore showing Charter88 has to feel that every decision is in the favor of their aims, by perhaps missing the point of the deal that the "Lib Dems" made with the government. The most noticable factor in this opinion of the party is that it does not point out any of the reasoning behind the deal, giving us an idea that Charter88 has not spoken to the party about the matter. The pressure group picked up some mention of electoral reform in the Labour manifesto, meaning they are looking to the Liberal Democrats to increase the pressure on labour to hold a referendum soon after the proposed review in 2003. Hoping that "First Past the Post" system will be put against a more proportional system. However, not since 1979 (before Charter88ís beginnings) has any of the three national parties committed itself in an election manifesto to Charter88's long-term goal of a written constitution. Only the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru manifestos in 1997 advocated a codified constitution for Scotland and Wales respectively.

After constitutional reform was raised by Charter88 during the 1992 general election, the cause of a "new constitutional settlement" for the UK was promoted by the late John Smith when he became Labour leader. Under Tony Blair, the Labour Government has implemented many parts of this programme, whilst denying the need for a synthetic approach to reform. Showing that, Charter88ís methods of pressure upon the parties is very successful. However, in the case of Tony Blair, it seems he is only trying to half please the Charter group as he will not agree to the full programme.

They believe that introducing a more proportional system of electing our MPs will challenge the cynicism and apathy which have been identified as pervading the minds of the electorate towards politics. If people see that their vote has more chance of counting towards electing an MP, and achieving representation for their interests, they are more likely to participate. A more proportional system will also challenge the parties to broaden their attention beyond the 168,000 voters in 90 marginal seats who gave Labour their 179 seat majority in 1997.

Unfortunately, on 23 March this year Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy made a deal on the form of words which Labour would include in its manifesto for the coming election. This was:

"The Government has introduced major innovations in the electoral systems used in the UK - for the Scottish and European Parliaments, and the Welsh and London assemblies. The Independent Commission on the Voting System made proposals for electoral reform at Westminster. We will review the experience of the new systems, and the Jenkins report, to assess whether changes might be made to the electoral system for the House of Commons. A referendum remains the right way to agree any changes for Westminster."

As the press and broadcasters reported, this was a retreat from Labour's 1997 commitment. Without a timetable for a referendum there will be no hope of starting and winning the public debate over reform.

As Charter88 said in response to this disappointing news, those of us pushing for reform since 1997 have relied too heavily on the goodwill of politicians to deliver a referendum. This does show my belief in Tony Blair also, as he did try and drum into our heads the improvement of education, however now he is still reeling from the A-levels disaster.

In the end it was not in their narrow party interest to do so. Charter88 thinks that they should have heeded John Smith's advice that this was an issue too important to be left to our elected representatives. The entire purpose of electoral reform is to give more power to the voters. From now on the group will be taking the argument directly to the people.

For all these reasons the time has come for a new constitutional settlement. That is why Charter88 wants to see a Citizens' Constitution.

If voters are to become citizens they must have a fundamental document. Without one, they remain powerless to exercise control over those who govern in their name between general elections.

Even if there were no other reason, relations between separate territorial parliaments and assemblies within the UK demand rules that everyone can understand. The present situation is a formula for perpetual conflict.

As a member of a European Union, which with the Charter of Fundamental Rights has continued the process of constitutionalising itself, the need for Britain to be clear about its own self-definition is all the greater. The process of creating a Citizen's Constitution will help to foster this.

Having a Citizens' Constitution is like having the vote: in itself it is procedural. It does not guarantee more justice, equality or efficiency or economic growth or any other outcome. People can have the vote and not use it, or feel like voting 'none of the above'. Nonetheless, as a matter of principle they must have the vote.

So it is with a Citizens' Constitution. It can not magic into being a society in which citizens participate in and exercise control over government. It will not automatically create a country in which everyone is free from discrimination and the indignities of inequality. This is not what Charter88 argues.

Our argument is quite simply this: without a new constitutional settlement that has the full consent of the people of these islands none of these other goals will be sustainably achieved.

From this information, I believe that this argument is well thought and clearly presented, however, the matter is lower in importance until the argument on proportional voting is cleared up. This is because to gain any kind of saying in what laws are passed, and how people live, the parties must be fairly represented by how they were voted for.

Electoral systems of proportional representation aim to provide parties with a ratio of seats as close as is practical to their share of the vote in elections. They also aim to ensure that minorities as well as majorities are represented.

Elections serve two main functions. The first is to decide who is to represent a local area or constituency, and the second is to decide the composition of the Commons among the political parties, from which the Government is formed. In terms either of finding the most popular candidate in a constituency or distributing seats among the parties, FPTP is not an efficient system.

FPTP creates 'electoral deserts'. In Surrey and Dorset 25% of people voted Labour in 1997. There are no Labour MPs in those counties. In Scotland and Wales there are no Conservative MPs, despite 17.5% voting Conservative in Scotland and 19.6% in Wales in 1997. The views of supporters of these parties from these areas are therefore not represented at Westminster.

Safe seats are bad for democracy. They discourage people from voting at all. Safer seats have generally lower turnouts than marginal seats. Parties take them for granted, and the views of minorities and all but the supporters of the winning party are not represented.

Parties focus entirely on winning the votes of a few hundred thousand 'swing' voters in marginal constituencies.

FPTP prevents the development of new parties or those representing minority interests or groups.

Because constituency parties choose only one candidate, parties are not currently choosing female candidates or those from minority ethnic groups to fight 'winnable' seats. This reinforces the white, middle class, male profile of Parliament.

FPTP encourages people to vote tactically against a candidate they dislike rather than positively for the candidate they do like. For example, in 1997 the widespread desire to oust the Conservatives led to a high degree of tactical voting by Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters. This meant that the result was even more distorted and fewer Conservatives were elected than would have been the case without tactical voting on such a scale.

Although the voting system can only be one factor involved in the effectiveness of government there is some research to suggest that countries with proportional voting systems, and more frequent coalition government, have a better record in terms of the country's average GDP and volatility. Of the G7 nations between 1981 and 1996 the UK had the second most volatile GDP. Canada was ranked 1 and the USA 3. All three have FPTP electoral systems. Of the states ranked better, Germany, France, Japan and Italy, all but France had broadly proportional systems8.

One of the main arguments used by the opponents of electoral reform is that small or extremist parties carry disproportionate influence within coalitions and Parliament. The example of the Green Party in Germany and the religious right in Israel are most often cited. Some countries, like Germany, operate a threshold of 5% of the total vote (or having constituency seats) before a party can be eligible for a list seat.

Dunleavy and Margetts have demonstrated that under AV+ there would be an effective threshold even higher than in Germany, without the unwelcome necessity of enforcing one. A party would have to poll over 8% of the vote, or 28,000 votes in a top-up region to win a seat. In Dunleavy and Margetts' model the lowest percentage on which a party won a top-up seat was 10.9% for the Liberal Democrats in Nottinghamshire. The British National Party and National Front have never polled at this level in national or local elections across a whole top-up area.

This argument is, in my view, the strongest point in the ëUnlocking Policiesí handbook. It carries weight as it presents hard statistics, with evidence in each party and not just with itís favorite party, the Liberal Democrats. The use of a criticisms section at the bottom of the argument is very convincing also as it gives the impression that the view has generated many opinions being fired at Charter88.

Charter88 welcomes the Human Rights Act as a positive first step towards the development of a Bill of Rights for the people of the United Kingdom. They also welcome the establishment of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. Their aim is to continue to press for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission to educate and support victims in seeking redress of human rights abuses under the Act.

The contents of a future Bill of Rights for the UK, and how it should be enforced, must be the result of detailed public consultation which should begin now the Convention is part of UK law. 

Charter88 believes that the Second Chamber should be directly elected, should have sufficient powers to challenge the Government and should reflect the broader UK constitution.

The Second Chamber should retain the power to delay legislation by a year and recommends that only the Commons should have the ability to initiate Government legislation.

Ultimately, the Government should be able to get its legislation through Parliament. However, the Second Chamber should be able to force the government to think again. At present, the House of Lords does not lack powers, but has little ability to challenge credibly the elected government. Charter88 believes that the Second Chamber could also improve the quality of legislation by taking greater responsibility for elements of pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny. 

Scotland

Charter88 campaigned hard for the creation of a Scottish Parliament and supports it now that it has come into being. The areas where the Scottish Parliament has decided to adopt different policies from those adopted by the Westminster Parliament for England and Wales, such as on higher education tuition fees or long-term care for the elderly, are an inevitable consequence of devolution. Scottish people are getting policy solutions that more closely reflect their wishes and aspirations. This is what devolution was designed to achieve and as such should be welcomed.

Wales

Charter88 has campaigned for Welsh devolution since 1988. They argued that the Welsh Assembly should have both tax-raising and legislative competence and regret that the Government of Wales Act 1998 fell short on both counts.

However, the Welsh Assembly is a huge achievement and we support it wholeheartedly. But the Welsh Assembly is the start, not the end, of the process of devolution. In time, and with the full consent of the people of Wales, we believe that the powers of the Assembly should be increased, to give the people of Wales an even greater say over the way the in which they are governed.

English Regional

Charter88 supports the development of regional government in England where there is public support for it. There is no belief in that the regional government can or should be imposed from above nor that regional government in all parts of the UK should follow a single model. Devolution to the regions of England should correspond as closely as possible to the individual needs, characteristics and aspirations of the people who live in those regions.

Charter88 is not convinced of the merits of an English Parliament. They believe that this would be a centralising move. The pressing need for democratic representation for the English is best met through regional government which draws powers down from the centre, and gives democratic accountability to the functions currently carried out by unelected regional bodies.

However Charter 88 believes that a wide-ranging exploration of the English question is now essential to democracy in Britain. This debate must take in issues of race and identity as well as democratic institutions and the constitution.

Local governments

Local government needs to be more accountable to its electorate. Councils should be able to set services according to local priorities, and be given more scope than at present to vary local taxation, so that people can easily see how their local services are paid for.

We support the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act as establishing for the first time the citizen's legal right to obtain information about themselves and the way we are governed.

However, following an encouraging White Paper, the Act which Parliament has passed is seriously flawed, and may, in some circumstances, restrict current access to information.

The timescale for implementation of the Act is also unnecessarily long. However, in the meantime, we urge everyone to use the existing Code of Practice on Open Government, to obtain information about themselves and the way in which we are governed.

House of Lords Campaign

A while back, the Government announced the composition of the Joint Committee on House of Lords reform. Earlier this year Charter88 successfully campaigned against the proposals in the Government's White Paper - Completing the Reform, and for a substantially or wholly elected House of Lords.

This is where the hard work begins. They now have to persuade the Joint Committee that the weight of opinion within parliament and amongst the public lies with a substantially elected second chamber. This is labeled as the greatest opportunity Charter88 have had so far to get as large a proportion of the second chamber elected as possible.

They provide a model letter that the everyday person can send to their MP, members of the Joint Committee, Government ministers or opposition spokespeople responsible for Lords reform.

On the website, www.charter88.org.uk, there are the following options to help their campaigns:

Sign a charter

Join or start a local group

Join urgent action email list

Make a donation to charter 88

Volunteer at the national office

Participate in democracy talks

Attend a public meeting

Charter88 is obviously a very well organised and well-funded group. It seems to have very strong links with parliament which it definitely uses to itís advantage to push public into campaigns against the government. By using the people as a voice the government have no choice but to ëroll overí and allow the needs of the people to be met. The website is very informative and it needs to be, as personally, I have never heard of Charter88 nor any of their work. However, their site is well laid out, with impressive notations of their successes, work in progress and future projects. I did find though, that the website does not give any history of the group, therefore pushing me to search longer to allow some sort of beginnings to be found. Otherwise, a very impressive movement, which, little by little, will cause our country to be much more democratic than it already is.