Does the British public need a national civics lesson?

[sbisson]

I know I shouldn't read the comments on the BBC blogs (especially Robert Peston's), but there's a certain car-crash fascination with watching logical fallacies colliding with the real world. I keep my mouth shut, laugh a little and move on to the rest of the internet.

However there's one big howler that keeps recurring and that I'm starting to find (a) annoying and (b) extremely worrying.

The main thrust of this so-called argument is that Gordon Brown was never voted for as Prime Minister, and so has no mandate for governing the country. I'm really astounded by this, as it implies a complete lack of understanding of the British political system, and of just how the country is governed. Of course this basic ignorance might explain why a sizeable number of them believe that one BBC journalist's reports are responsible for much the current economic morass...

This then leads me to ask the obvious question: do these people know how a parliamentary representative democracy like Britain (and much of the Commonwealth) actually works? It also leads on to the sadder question: if they don't, how did they get to voting age without knowing anything about the political system that governs their day-to-day lives?

Britain isn't a presidential state like the USA or Eire or France. We don't vote for a President on top of our elected local representative. Instead we vote for a Member of Parliament, and the leader of the majority grouping in Parliament becomes the Prime Minister. We don't vote for a party slate or for a party leader - we vote for the person we believe will do the best for our constituency. If you voted for your MP believing that you were voting for Tony Blair or David Cameron or whoever, well, your mistake. But just because you don't know how the world works isn't an excuse for it not working the way you want it to.

If the majority party changes leader, well, they just go on to become Prime Minister, with no need for a general election. We may even get the rare situation where minority parties go into coalition and completely replace the majority government. Again, there's no need for an election. While these changes may mean a new person at the top, the person you voted for is still in Parliament - and still answerable to you for their actions.

I suspect it's time for a mass civics lesson, and a pointer to They Work For You.

It's enough to make me want to scream.

However I have a blog, so I'll just rant there instead.

Comments

[andrewducker]

if they don't, how did they get to voting age without knowing anything about the political system that governs their day-to-day lives?

Why would they? It wasn't taught to me in school.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

It really does worry me that supposedly educated people are this ignorant. I was certainly taught how our democracy (and, for that matter, how the US, German and French democracies) worked when I was at school. This is so long ago now (the 1960s) that I can't remember which classes this was taught in, but almost certainly history, as we were expected to have a wide enough knowledge to walk through O Level General Studies without a single class. All except a couple of us did. (A Level General Studies on the other hand, did allow for a couple of classes a week in those subjects where you were weak - the translations and foreign language essays for the science students and the maths for the arts students.) However, this was a rather decent Grammar School.)

Aren't kids supposed to have Civics or something nowadays? How come I had a better education on this subject than political correspondents and journalists?

Oh, and I agree with your rant...

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

If it's any consolation, the exact same annoying thing keeps happening here in Canadia...

I do get the sense, though, that people argue that Prime Ministers have no moral right to govern without a so-called "people's mandate", not that they have no legal right. You could argue that while the government is de jure parliamentary, it's de facto somewhat presidential, many people tend to vote for leaders not parties, and that pretending this isn't the case is a little disingenuous. I don't agree, but I see where the people who say so are coming from.

[ias.livejournal.com]

I'd take out Eire from your comparision (or more correctly the Republic of Ireland as you are writing in English not Gaelic). The RoI had a parliamentary democracy as we do in the UK but with an elected upper house rather than appointed and an elected head of state rather than hereditary. The President of Ireland can no more effect policy or run the country than can the Queen. They sign off acts of parliament, shake hands, open hospital wings, supports charities, represents Ireland abroad and all the sort of stuff the Queen does but at a fraction of the cost.

[grey-lady.livejournal.com]

I was taught how the US government and my own state's government worked when I was in school (in the US); that said, it was an elective course.

When I moved here I made a point of learning about the parliamentary representative democracy - but then, I'm like that.

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

A-fucking-men!

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

Technically, of course, the Monarch asks the majority party leader to form his/her government, but the odds against the King or Queen breaking with tradition and choosing a different party take that into the realms of fantasy.

[montemplar.livejournal.com]

Speaking of Peston... I find it very hard to watch him on TV without snickering... constantly reminded of the way Rory Bremner impersonates him so well... same goes for Huw Edwards and Nick Robinson... :)