CAMBRIDGE LETTER
Exercising the right to vote
BILL KIRKMAN
A high turnout is a clear reflection of a widespread wish for change.
ON the day on which this Letter is published, French electors will be voting in the second round of their presidential election. In the first round, the field was narrowed to two candidates, the Right Wing Nicolas Sarkozy and the socialist Ségolène Royal. The remarkable thing about that round was the huge turnout — 83 per cent. The contrast with the 2002 election, when there was a high proportion of abstentions — to the benefit of the Right Wing extremist National Front — was dramatic.
Special circumstances
Three days before this Letter appears, United Kingdom electors will have had the chance to vote in local government elections. In Scotland, where many powers are devolved to a Scottish executive, they will additionally have been voting for members of the Scottish parliament.
Attempting to predict the results would be foolhardy, and pointless; they will very soon be known. There are, however, special circumstances which make all these elections unusually interesting.
In France, the Presidency of Jacques Chirac has lasted many years, and in the past three or four years there have been increasing signs of discontent with the political state of the country. France has suffered from serious economic problems, and high unemployment, particularly among young people. This has led to racial tensions in cities, where citizens from ethnic minorities have become ghettos of the unemployed and deprived. The high turnout of voters is a clear reflection of a widespread wish for change.
Mood of disillusionment
In the U.K., after 10 years of Tony Blair's Prime Ministership — a long period by any standards — there is a mood of disillusionment. Support for the Blair-led Labour Party is at a low ebb. A recent opinion poll by Communicate Research, published in The Independent, shows support for Labour at 27 per cent, its lowest point for nearly 25 years.
Turnout in U.K. local elections is traditionally low; it is usually the apathy party that wins. It will be interesting to see whether the state of feeling about national politics has any effect on the numbers voting. If the numbers prove to have been appreciably higher than usual, that will surely be more of a reflection of the national than the local political mood; the powers of local authorities are limited, and people are well aware that it is the government in Whitehall rather than in the city or county hall that is the real influence on our lives.
Because of devolution, Scotland is different. The Scottish executive's decisions and policies do affect people's lives. Public services in Scotland, for example, are often better. Free university tuition, and free care for old people are two examples of what is available in Scotland but not in England.
One of the big issues underlined by the Scottish elections is a fundamental constitutional question: will the Union between England and Scotland survive? Will the experience of devolution whet the appetite of the people of Scotland for full independence? The political unification of the two countries began 300 years ago, in 1707. There has for years been a Scottish independence movement, led by the Scottish National Party (SNP), which is committed to independence. Support for it has been growing.
Scottish independence
Last Thursday's Scottish elections were not, of course, a vote on continuing or ending the Union, but the issue is real and live. Half a century ago, the received wisdom was that small countries would find it hard to survive. There is plenty of evidence now to indicate that this is not necessarily true. Having just been on a short visit to Norway, one of Scotland's neighbours, I have been strongly reminded of this; their populations are similar (Scotland's slightly over five million, Norway's slightly under). Both have access to major oil reserves. Norway, not, incidentally, in the European Union, is manifestly prosperous.
In France in 2002 the failure of many electors to vote and the consequent boost to the National Front demonstrated how vulnerable democracy can be. If we look back 13 years, to April 1994, when South Africans of all races were able for the first time to vote in an election, and did so in their thousands, we have another, far more significant, reminder of this.
Crucial issue
This week's elections in France and the U.K. have been significant because of issues well beyond the normal working of the democratic process. Perhaps the most important question will be not how the various electorates have reacted to the issues, but to what extent they have shown understanding that the right to vote is precious.
Bill Kirkman is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College Cambridge, UK. Email him at: bill.kirkman@gmail.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
