Tuesday, 11 May 2010

Some brief thoughts on Britain's "New Politics"

So Britain finally has its first coalition government since the second world war. Given that India has not had single-party government since 1989, my first reaction is: welcome to the club! I do find it quite fascinating how the notion of political coalitions seems to so strongly polarise opinions in this country (as opposed to India, where we generally take it for granted). On the one hand, you have the optimists, whose views I think are well encapsulated by Nick Clegg's eloquent statement, founded on the notion that politicians can work together for the common good. On the other hand, there are those (specifically, Lib Dem or Tory voters) who feel that their interests have been sold out and that their party has betrayed them by compromising on the manifesto they voted for. It seems to me that this second view is based on prioritising the interests of a relatively narrow group of people, as opposed to the population as a whole. To those who dislike the idea of coalition and compromise, my question is: what alternative do you propose in the situation of a hung parliament? And even more generally, given that there is a very wide range of views and interests in society, what is the most democratic way of representing those in government and policy making? Is it better to have the 30-40% that voted for the single largest party getting all (or most) of their manifesto promises fulfilled, whilst the remaining 60-70% get virtually none of what they voted for, leading to polarisation, partisanship and rancour? Or is it better to try and have a governing system that, on the basis of dialogue and compromise, adopts policies in proportion with their support amongst the population, so that no one will get everything they wish for but no one will feel completely left out either? Which approach is fairer? Which, in the long run, is likely to lead to a stronger and more equitable society?