Starbucks democracy

I thought I'd take a quick break from my dissertation to write a short piece on the aftermath of yesterday's EU referendum vote. In that vote, 81 Conservative MPs rebelled against the Government. 

In true McCarthy style, the rebels were described by their supporters as 'patriots'. I'm not sure when it became un-British to want to stay in the EU but there it is.

Perhaps more interesting was the claim that a vote against a referendum was 'undemocratic'. This reflects the modern phenomenon described by the Economist as 'Starbucks politics'. In a world where people have become used to personalised treatment in other areas of life, they demand the right to pick and choose government policies.

We live in a parliamentary democracy. In the words of the Economist:

The basic deal of parliamentary democracy is, or used to be, that on polling day voters make an overall choice among the packages on offer. They can turf out the government at the next election, but until then they have to live with compromise, frequent disappointment and occasional coercion.

It is based on an acceptance that government, with all its conflicting priorities, cannot be done on a single-issue basis. That reasoning no longer seems to convince a large number of people. They want their say on individual issues and accuse any government which refuses them of being undemocratic.

As California shows, direct democracy is not such a great idea. It is not practical for each and every government decision to go to a plebiscite. It causes chaos as governments lose the ability to govern.  Referenda should be reserved for those rare occasions when they are truly necessary. Otherwise they undermine the very democracy they are meant to serve.

Rebellious Tories: What is it about Europe?

On Monday Parliament will vote on whether there should be a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. Even though the motion is likely to fail, more than 60 Conservative MPs might vote against the thee-line whip imposed by the Government. This has caused me quite a bit of irritation.

Anyone who has talked with me probably knows that I am (relatively) pro-Europe. It wasn't always so, but I've now seen the light. I want Britain to be the driving force behind this unprecedented project in international co-operation, one which has brought democracy and prosperity to millions. There are aspects I'm not happy with (think CAP) but, overall, I think it's a good idea.

However, it's not for this reason I'm annoyed. I can cope with the fact that many people inexplicably believe you can remain a part of the Common Market without applying EU regulations. I don't understand them, but then again there's a lot in this World I don't understand.

No, what annoys me is the way the Conservative Party reacts when presented with the issue of Europe. Britain's most pragmatic party throws reason to the wind and goes into suicide mode. The issue tore apart John Major's government in 1997 whilst failure to deal with the issue resulted in pathetic electoral performances in 2001 and 2005.

Now in 2011, Britain's economic recovery is anaemic. Meanwhile, Europe's economy hangs on the brink of collapse whilst the Continent's leaders are locked in talks on how to bring it back. If there is a defining characteristic of the Conservative Party it should be economic competence. It is the issue which defines the Coalition Government, bringing the Lib Dems into an otherwise inconceivable pact with the Tories.  

It thus seems ludicrous that  over 60 Conservative MPs could even consider supporting such a diversion of time and energy whilst the key issue of the day remains unaddressed. You can repatriate powers any time. You can only prevent economic collapse once. The contempt they are showing Britain's economic travails risks serious damage to both the Coalition and the Conservative Party. Even if they don't worry about the Coalition, they should care about the Party.

I understand that you can't ignore the calls of 100,000 voters. To ignore the petition and not hold a vote would be undemocratic. Nonetheless, there is a huge difference between supporting a vote on a proposition and supporting the proposition itself.

David Cameron should impose a three-line whip. For those who ignore it, I hope he throws the book at them.

Why pictures of Gaddafi's corpse were necessary

Shortly after Muammar Gaddafi's death, images of his corpse were broadcast worldwide. The front page of the Sun was probably one of the most brutal. There were calls from some that such a grotesque practice was completely out of place in the twenty-first century. Suffice it to say, I wasn't one of them.

In the words of one prolific Twitterer: 'Sticking a photo of a bloodied corpse on the front page of every newspaper is the modern equivalent of sticking heads on spikes'. Is that such a bad thing? Through its very barbarity, that gruesome custom sought to deter others from following a similar path. Dictators otherwise happy to wage war against their own people will see what a humiliating fate awaits them on their fall. 

Bashar Assad should take note. Syria might not be the pariah state that was Gaddafi's Libya and he might be able to rely on the support of other regional powers. However, Egypt was very strongly connected internationally and Mubarak still fell. 

Not all the effects were so negative: broadcast of those images also brought transparency. The world now knows Gaddafi was executed extra-judicially. With no prospect of a cover-up, the National Transitional Council will now investigate his death. Under such close scrutiny, Libya's new ruling body will find itself held to the highest standards. This can only help the country move towards the liberal democracy for which its people fought so hard.

It's hard to feel sorry for Gaddafi. I'm not going to try. He had the blood of thousands on his hands. He sponsored terrorism and waged war against his own people. He should have stood trial for his crimes. Failing that, humiliation was the least he deserved.