This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/04/the-guardian-view-on-regulating-elections-democracy-needs-a-tougher-defence
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on regulating elections: democracy needs a tougher defence | The Guardian view on regulating elections: democracy needs a tougher defence |
| (2 months later) | |
| A healthy democracy has many mechanisms to hold politicians to account, but none as mighty as the ballot box. The government that fails to fulfil its promises can be expelled from power. This contract between electorate and elected is one reason why many democrats are suspicious of referendums. The danger is that they elevate a one-off verdict above the normal constitutional process. A failing government can be sacked, but what about a failing idea? | A healthy democracy has many mechanisms to hold politicians to account, but none as mighty as the ballot box. The government that fails to fulfil its promises can be expelled from power. This contract between electorate and elected is one reason why many democrats are suspicious of referendums. The danger is that they elevate a one-off verdict above the normal constitutional process. A failing government can be sacked, but what about a failing idea? |
| This hazard has been realised since June 2016. Vote Leave, the official campaign for Brexit, celebrated its victory by disbanding. It features in the news now only because it is accused of breaching rules in the run-up to polling day. An investigation by the electoral commission has provisionally found that Vote Leave diverted money to a smaller pro-Brexit group to bypass campaign finance caps. The commission’s report has yet to be published, but former Vote Leave executives have made the charge public, alongside their own rebuttal – a spoiler which will limit the impact when the full story breaks. | This hazard has been realised since June 2016. Vote Leave, the official campaign for Brexit, celebrated its victory by disbanding. It features in the news now only because it is accused of breaching rules in the run-up to polling day. An investigation by the electoral commission has provisionally found that Vote Leave diverted money to a smaller pro-Brexit group to bypass campaign finance caps. The commission’s report has yet to be published, but former Vote Leave executives have made the charge public, alongside their own rebuttal – a spoiler which will limit the impact when the full story breaks. |
| Separately, senior figures at Leave.EU, a rival pro-Brexit campaign led by Nigel Farage, have been accused of improper association with the Russian embassy and of misleading parliament about the connection. Earlier this year, Leave.EU was also fined £70,000 for spending-related breaches of electoral law. | Separately, senior figures at Leave.EU, a rival pro-Brexit campaign led by Nigel Farage, have been accused of improper association with the Russian embassy and of misleading parliament about the connection. Earlier this year, Leave.EU was also fined £70,000 for spending-related breaches of electoral law. |
| The Electoral Commission looks overwhelmed by the challenge of policing 21st century democracy. It can only uphold the law as it exists and, as it warns, those statutes are obsolescing in an age of global digital networks and big data. The norms of politics have changed, the flow of money is harder to track, making it harder to discern what constitutes a fair political fight. Ideally politicians would lead this debate, but there is a systemic problem: no winning side will ever want to start a conversation that casts doubt on the legitimacy of its victory. | The Electoral Commission looks overwhelmed by the challenge of policing 21st century democracy. It can only uphold the law as it exists and, as it warns, those statutes are obsolescing in an age of global digital networks and big data. The norms of politics have changed, the flow of money is harder to track, making it harder to discern what constitutes a fair political fight. Ideally politicians would lead this debate, but there is a systemic problem: no winning side will ever want to start a conversation that casts doubt on the legitimacy of its victory. |
| In the case of Brexit, the winning side has gone further, largely refusing to engage with any of the consequences of the choice it recommended. Vote Leave and Leave.EU sold their big idea on terms that others must now deliver. Theresa May tried last year to transfer the referendum mandate to herself by calling a general election. She lost her majority, but that result did not dent her conviction that the “will of the people” is whatever she asserts it to be. She abandoned most of her manifesto – but the Brexit element she holds sacrosanct. | In the case of Brexit, the winning side has gone further, largely refusing to engage with any of the consequences of the choice it recommended. Vote Leave and Leave.EU sold their big idea on terms that others must now deliver. Theresa May tried last year to transfer the referendum mandate to herself by calling a general election. She lost her majority, but that result did not dent her conviction that the “will of the people” is whatever she asserts it to be. She abandoned most of her manifesto – but the Brexit element she holds sacrosanct. |
| A gap has thus opened up between the verdict on Britain’s EU membership delivered one June day two years ago and the political process that would traditionally be accountable for taking such a momentous decision. Dissent on the question of Brexit is denigrated as an offence against the people and inevitably that attitude bleeds into a more generalised culture of governing arrogance. Habits of disregard for practical policy and a cavalier attitude to truth that were pioneered by the leave side in the EU referendum have proved contagious. | A gap has thus opened up between the verdict on Britain’s EU membership delivered one June day two years ago and the political process that would traditionally be accountable for taking such a momentous decision. Dissent on the question of Brexit is denigrated as an offence against the people and inevitably that attitude bleeds into a more generalised culture of governing arrogance. Habits of disregard for practical policy and a cavalier attitude to truth that were pioneered by the leave side in the EU referendum have proved contagious. |
| One example: Esther McVey, work and pensions secretary, was today forced to apologise to parliament for misleading comments made about universal credit. Sir Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, had accused Mrs McVey of misrepresenting a report his agency had published criticising implementation of the flagship welfare reform. It was an unusually robust public rebuke, testifying to frustration with a politician who appears to have believed that the facts of the matter can be whatever she chooses them to be. | One example: Esther McVey, work and pensions secretary, was today forced to apologise to parliament for misleading comments made about universal credit. Sir Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, had accused Mrs McVey of misrepresenting a report his agency had published criticising implementation of the flagship welfare reform. It was an unusually robust public rebuke, testifying to frustration with a politician who appears to have believed that the facts of the matter can be whatever she chooses them to be. |
| It is easy to see how a minister in Mrs May’s cabinet might acquire that delusion. The ethos of this government has been corrupted by its relationship with the legacy of the leave campaign. That project now looks dishonest on many levels, while the mechanisms that might hold it to account look unequal to the task. | It is easy to see how a minister in Mrs May’s cabinet might acquire that delusion. The ethos of this government has been corrupted by its relationship with the legacy of the leave campaign. That project now looks dishonest on many levels, while the mechanisms that might hold it to account look unequal to the task. |
| It suits any government to decide that the popular will has been captured once and once only. That approach removes the frustrating obligation to consider that minds change, or that new facts come to light. But convenient though that might be for ministers, it isn’t how a healthy democracy works. | It suits any government to decide that the popular will has been captured once and once only. That approach removes the frustrating obligation to consider that minds change, or that new facts come to light. But convenient though that might be for ministers, it isn’t how a healthy democracy works. |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Article 50 | Article 50 |
| European Union | European Union |
| Foreign policy | Foreign policy |
| Theresa May | Theresa May |
| Esther McVey | Esther McVey |
| Nigel Farage | Nigel Farage |
| editorials | editorials |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |