|
Magazine
CAMBRIDGE LETTER
Negation of democracy
BILL KIRKMAN
|
When the decisions of the elected bodies are overthrown by non-elected ‘experts’ and accountability is diluted, people tend to get cynical of governments.
|
Photo: AFP
Indicative of a larger problem: Would-be immigrants in a coastguard ship.
The Treatment of asylum seekers by the UK falls “seriously below” the standards of a civilised society. That is not my statement, but the finding published in a report by the Independent Asylum Commission. The report said the treatment of
some asylum seekers was a shameful blemish on the UK’s international reputation.
This is strong stuff, and, not surprisingly, it has been refuted by the Border and Immigration Agency, which claims that it operates a “firm but humane” system. The report has also been criticised by Migration Watch UK, which comments that the report “has completely ignored the fact that in recent years just over 60 per cent of asylum claims in the UK have been rejected as not genuine”.
The Independent Asylum Commission, however, though unofficial, cannot simply be dismissed as a lightweight body. Its co-chairman is Sir John Waite, who is a former Appeal Court judge, and among its members is Lord Ramsbotham, a former, fiercely independent, chief inspector of prisons. Speaking about the report, Lord Ramsbotham told the BBC that officials considering asylum claims often had a poor understanding of an individual’s circumstances.
Not really a surprise
The criticisms made by the Asylum Commission come as no surprise to me. For years it has been clear that our immigration policy is in a mess. Indeed, it was John Reid, a former Home Secretary (minister responsible for home affairs) who described the immigration system as “not fit for purpose”.
This kind of comment, and the Asylum Commission’s report, indicate a problem far wider than the particular issue of immigration and asylum. It is the problem of widespread disillusionment about the efficiency of central government.
There have been many events in recent months which have nurtured that disillusionment: the loss of computer discs containing sensitive personal data and the handling of the crisis over the failed bank, Northern Rock, are just two good examples from many that could be chosen.
Of course, all organisations are liable to make mistakes. (If anyone doubted that, the chaotic fiasco of the opening of the new terminal at Heathrow Airport during the past few days, and the performance of the airline BA and the airport owner BAA, provided us with a salutary reminder that the private sector can also get things badly wrong.)
Most reasonable people will accept that mistakes happen. What people increasingly resent is the predilection of government for taking all decision-making into its own hands, and progressively diluting true democratic accountability — accountability vested in elected representatives.
About a year ago (“Cambridge Letter”, March 25, 2007) I wrote about the overthrowing by inspectors of the decisions of all the relevant local councils on the size of a planned new town near Cambridge. The fact that the decisions of elected bodies can be — and are — overthrown by non-elected “experts” is, I pointed out, the negation of democracy, and, what is more, it is the kind of thing which encourages cynicism about central government.
Not an encouraging sign
A few days ago I attended, as an elected parish councillor, a meeting with officials of the county council, and our, elected, county councillor. We met to discuss the need, because of the forthcoming building of the new town, for a by-pass road round our village. There are, we all well understood, a number of issues, notably financial issues, which will affect the likelihood of getting the by-pass. Then we were reminded that the decision on it will be a matter for the East of England Development Agency.
Like all development agencies, the EEDA is a body of appointed, not elected, members. Stephen Timms, Minister of State for Competitiveness and Consumer Affairs, announcing the appointment of three new members to the EEDA, declared: “The RDAs (Regional Development Agencies) have a crucial role to play as drivers of economic development in their region, working to reduce imbalances within and between regions.” There is nothing wrong with that role. It makes eminent sense. But in a democracy, surely, it is precisely that kind of role which should be the responsibility of elected members, representing, and accountable to, the citizens who elected them.
To add insult to injury, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced last year that RDAs are to be given new powers, while, by 2010, the elected, regional assemblies are to be abolished.
Today’s politicians would do well to remember the remark of Winston Churchill, in a speech in the House of Commons on November 11, 1947. He said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
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
|
