The manner in which the Green Party decided two weeks ago to join Fianna Fáil in Government was almost charming. Almost charming because of how unusual it is for parties to permit their members to have any say in major decisions, for parties to be democratic, writes Vincent Browne.
Members of most parties are expected to hang posters, drop literature and cheer when required. They are certainly never asked to make any decisions. In some parties, delegates from branches are permitted to take part in some decisions through party conferences but, in the case of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, this now is a fiction also.
The anti-democratic character of most political parties is a reflection of the denigration of democracy generally. The idea of democracy was to replace government by kings and oligarchs with government by the people, for the people. It was Jean-Jacques Rousseau who devised the most interesting and, at the time, most influential formulation: that people do not need to suborn themselves to the will of others; in a democracy they suborn themselves to themselves through what he called a "general will".
But the way our democracy has developed, the idea that it is the people themselves who are sovereign is notional. Authority has been subcontracted or outsourced to a political class, which in turn outsources authority to a governing class, leaving citizens subordinated to that class and, indeed, the whole process subordinated to that governing class.
Just think of what has happened in recent elections. The people were invited to choose candidates, mainly for parties, representing a hotchpotch of policies, with the successful candidates (those who become TDs) electing from among them a taoiseach, who then chooses a government. The people have no say at all in anything that happens - aside from constitutional issues. Indeed, the TDs have no say, or almost no say, in anything that happens because the Dáil is entirely subordinated to the government of the day. Hence the double-outsourcing.
Contrast that - citizens having only the most remote say in decision-making - with the example of the Green Party members having a direct say in decision-making.
When the idea of the people as a whole deciding the future of their society was first proposed, the argument against that was that the people don't know enough to have a say. Only those with education, experience and a stake in society should have authority. The same argument applies today. The people don't know enough about the minutiae of government and therefore cannot be trusted with direct authority. Only a political elite can be entrusted, and the role of the people is to decide which elite should take decisions for them.
I am prompted to raise this in the context of two recent developments. The first is the commitment in the programme for government to establish an electoral commission to take charge of elections. Fianna Fáil might understand this simply as a device to introduce electronic voting (which, in itself, is a great idea, for it might facilitate more direct involvement by the people), while the Greens want it to ensure that the electoral register is up to date. But the idea could be extended to propose ways in which our democracy can be deepened, to involve the people more in decision-making. For instance, on tax policy, on issues to do with redistribution generally, on issues such as the co-location of private hospitals on public hospital land, and on criminal policy issues.
It is certainly the case that greater public involvement, at least initially, would result in politics abhorrent to left-liberals, but those of us of that persuasion can hardly complain about the people being more involved. The long-term consequence would be an electorate that was far more politicised than it is now, far more conversant with issues of policy, and far more focused on the broader policy considerations that underlie debate on such issues.
The other issue that has prompted these reflections has been the recent European Council, which has come up with a revised EU constitution involving an ingenious caper: to deprive as many people as possible throughout the EU from having a direct say on the constitution.
For instance, the new president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, says there is no need to put this new constitution to a referendum of the people of France as there was with the earlier version - the French and the Dutch peoples scuttled the earlier draft by voting against it.
Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende says the new text meets most of his country's demands and that "the idea of a constitution and all the elements that go along with it . . . is gone", the import of which being that there is no need to involve the people of Holland in it. The Danes are taking a similar line, while Britain's new New Labour is hoping the messy business of having the people decide may be avoided.
Even here there is a hint that the people may not need to be consulted. Dermot Ahern said on radio at the weekend that it was not clear if a referendum was needed - although Bertie Ahern had said a referendum would be held next year. This is responsible politics. And it is what is wrong with responsible politics.