What Next for Britain’s Pro-Europeans?

One of the problems with political science is that publishing books and articles takes time, but events move quickly.  In 2005, Stefano Bartolini wrote an influential monograph, Restructuring Europe, which  argued that the ‘Europe issue’ had complicated the internal politics of Member States, but had not yet fundamentally changed party competition.

Cameron’s ‘Europe speech‘, finally delivered on 23rd January 2013, and the anaemic response of Britain’s other major parties, whose leaders ostensibly support the EU but are not willing to expend any political capital making a positive case, have finally forced the issue.  Polls show that, while 40% of the British population would vote to leave the EU, 37% would vote to stay.

Britain already has an influential anti-European party, UKIP.  Having, until now, benefited from the tacit (if unenthusiastic) support of the existing political elite, the pro-European lobby has had less incentive to create a formal political movement.

The first-past-the-post inevitable acts as a straitjacket during Westminster elections.  However, if the anti-European jungle drums continue to beat louder, it seems only a matter of time before the pro-Europeans organise, perhaps in advance of the June 2014 European elections.

Alison Smith is a lecturer in Comparative Government and tutor in European Politics at Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford.  You can follow her on twitter @AliFionaSmith.

Czech Presidential Election: The Count is Almost Finished

With more than 90% of the vote counted, it now looks certain that the second round of the Czech Republic’s presidential election will be a battle between the veteran leftist, Milos Zeman, and the country’s aristocratic foreign minister, Karel Schwarzenberg.  Zeman currently has 24.67% of the vote. Schwarzenberg is hot on his tail with 22.12%.  Former Prime Minister, Jan Fischer, who was long tipped to make the run-off against Zeman, but had a torrid final week after poor debate performances, trails with 16.72%.

The run-off will be held on 25/26 January.

The Race for Prague Castle Heats Up

For months, the Czech Republic’s first presidential election looked like a straight fight between two former Prime Ministers, Jan Fischer and Milos Zeman.  However, the field has opened up in the final week.

While Zemen, a veteran leftist, looks certain to make it through to the final round, Fischer, a technocratic former statistician, has looked lacklustre, spectacularly underperforming in the public debates.  As one commentator put it, ‘emptiness surfaced behind trained gestures‘.

The Czech Republic bans opinion polls in the closing days of the campaign, making predictions difficult.  However, the final poll on Monday suggested that Fischer’s support had fallen to 16.2%, while the support of Karel Schwarzenberg, the country’s aristocratic foreign minister, had risen to 14.2%.

Although still in third place, Schwarzenberg’s campaign has gained momentum, having picked up support from two quarters: those who like neither Zeman nor Fischer; and those on the centre-right who now doubt whether Fischer will be a viable candidate against Zeman in the second round, which is due to be held on 25th-26th January.

Political Developments will keep you informed as the results come in.

Countdown to First Czech Presidential Elections

Lithuania’s Semi-Presidential Stand Off Reaches its Endgame

Almost exactly a month after the second round of the October 2012 parliamentary elections, Lithuania is in the final stages of appointing a new government. As predicted prior to the election, the two centre-left parties, the Labour Party and the Social Democrats (LSDP), gained enough votes to form a coalition with a third party, the populist Order and Justice.  The Conservative Homeland Union-Lithuanian Christian Democrats, who led the country through the financial crisis, performed better than expected, but were left in second place with no obvious coalition partners.

Given the pre-election maneuvering that had already taken place, the formation of a centre-left coalition should have been straightforward. But it was not to be. The second round of the constituency campaigns was marred by allegations of vote-buying, particularly in prisons, aimed primarily at the Labour Party, which already had a reputation for corruption.  The complaints were referred to the Constitutional Court for adjudication, and Lithuania’s president, Dalia Grybauskaite, refused to approve any government that contained the Labour Party.

The result was a classic semi-presidential stand-off, with President Grybauskaite and the would-be Prime Minister, the LSDP’s Algirdas Butkevicius, locked in a battle of wills.  Meanwhile, the Conservative leader, Andrius Kubilius, continued to run the country.  The deadlock was finally broken when Butkevicius recruited an additional coalition partner, Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania, a small party representing the country’s Polish minority.  This gave the coalition a three-fifths majority in Parliament, sufficient to over-ride any presidential veto.

President Grybaukaite backed down, but not before making two demands.  Firstly, she has asked that the immunity of the MPs implicated in criminal dealings be revoked (Lithuanian MPs have immunity from prosecution).  Secondly, and somewhat bizarrely, the President requested a personal meeting with each proposed minister to confirm their fluency in at least one of the EU’s languages, English, French or German.  President Grybauskaite is a former EU commissioner, and Lithuania will hold the EU Presidency from July to December 2013.  However, the President’s gesture was only partially inspired by respect for Lithuania’s international partners.  Its primary purpose was to exclude certain individuals, viewed by the President as corrupt, from ministerial office.

This month’s stand-off may be healthy for Lithuania’s democracy in the long term. Most significantly, the prosecution of electoral violations is an important step in tackling corruption.  Even better if immunity from criminal prosecution is lifted, since the guarantee of such immunity tends to attract the wrong sorts of candidates to politics.

Although an extra coalition partner can make disagreements more likely, the inclusion of Lithuania’s long-marginalised Polish minority in the governmental process is arguably long overdue.  Lithuania’s relations with Poland have been poor in recent years, largely as a result of disputes over the treatment of this minority.

Therefore, despite the unexpected drama, Lithuania’s 2012 elections have provided an opportunity to tackle problems that have persisted since its transition to democracy twenty years ago.

Mitt Romney and the 47%: No Way Back?

American presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s comments that 47% of the American population will ‘never take responsibility and care for their lives’ have added yet more controversy to a campaign dominated by gaffes in recent weeks. Every politician mis-steps on occasion, but Mr Romney’s comments will be especially difficult to overcome because:

1. They reveal the fundamentally cynical and elitist worldview, dashing any hopes that Romney is a secret moderate.

2. They will fire up Obama’s base, demotivate Romney’s base (many Romney supporters are in the 47% that pay no income tax) and scare off independents.

3. According to the kindest interpretation, Mr Romney’s comments are part of an important wider debate about tax and entitlement. True, the US faces important choices about how to reinvigorate its economy and balance the books. But any such debate requires the Republicans to show their hand. Do they have plans to lower the income tax threshold? What entitlements do they plan to cut? The GOP been coy about these issues for good reasons: there is no consensus within their own party. Any plans to raise taxes for the poor will inevitably alienate some Republican voters, not to mention the attention that will be drawn back to Mr Romney’s own tax returns.

4.  Even those who sympathise with Mr Romney’s comments will despair of his apparent inability to run a winning election campaign.  There have been too many unforced errors.  This undermines his credibility as a man who ‘gets things done’.

5.  Mr Romney has, so far, failed to define himself in the public’s minds.  In politics, if you don’t define yourself, others will define you.  Because this gaffe plays up to the Democrats’ caricature of a heartless vulture capitalist, the image is likely to stick.

The odds of a Romney victory are getting longer by the day.  GOP congressional candidates will hope that he stops digging, now, before their own campaigns are contaminated.

Closing the UK’s Democratic Deficit: Is a New Party of Local Notables The Answer?

In these days of financial crisis, austerity and expenses scandals, one doesn’t have to go far to find citizens complaining that our democracy is in decline.  Most people do this from the comfort of their armchairs, shouting at Question Time or changing the TV channel when a particularly annoying politician crosses their screen.  However, the founder of the Independent newspaper, Andreas Whittam Smith, is prepared to go one step further.

Yesterday, Whittam Smith announced a plan for a new British movement to ‘restore democracy’.  He argued that the UK’s current MPs are drawn from a narrow set of backgrounds – law, medicine, journalism and, of course, political hackery.  In this view, we are left with a cohort of politicians more suited to marketing themselves than running the country.

Whittam Smith has a big idea to solve this problem.  He hopes to recruit a set of local notables – people who have have ‘done something with their lives, and have established themselves in their communities’.  This group of candidates would announce ’easy-to-understand policies for the problems people worry most about, such as unemployment, crime, immigration, care of old people, NHS, welfare reform, Europe.’  These policies would be made by ‘participative policy making, lasting a year, and using the digital media to ensure openness and legitimacy.’  Candidates would stand for one parliamentary term, a limit that would encourage the participation of talented people with experience outside politics, and also shut the door on ‘career politicians’.

Few would disagree with Wittam Smith’s concern about ‘career politicians’ being drawn from a narrow range of backgrounds.  Since Greek and Roman times, people wished to be represented by the brightest, best and most honest.  Unfortunately, the reality has been consistently less appealing.  Any initiative that encourages good people to enter politics, and provides them with the necessary organisational support, has to be applauded.

That said, Whittam Smith’s proposal is startlingly naive in places.  He argues that policy-making will be easy because ‘ideological differences are small these days, even between the established parties, which often magnify what are in effect small distinctions to make themselves stand out.’  Of course, Whittam Smith’s local notables would agree a set of policies on areas as uncontroversial as immigration, Europe, and how to balance the UK’s wayward budget.  No problem there, then.

Whittam Smith underestimates how hard most politicians and parliamentary candidates actually work.   In his view, local notables can participate in policy-making on-line, give a small donation (maximum £50), put their name on a ballot paper, then serve in Parliament for a maximum period of five years.  Not for them, years of organising volunteers, tramping the pavements of their constituency and spending every last penny of their spare cash on petrol, refreshments for volunteers and raffle tickets at the local fete.  Perhaps Whittam Smith believes that the public will be so grateful to see a good honest local notable entering the fray that these demands will be waived.  This is unlikely.

Although the idea for new apolitical movement is novel in the UK, it is not uncommon on the continent, particularly in the new democracies of central and east Europe, where ‘traditional parties’ constantly compete against ephemeral movements of local notables.  Such movements were initially greeted with enthusiasm by voters, but in every single case they collapse within two terms or develop traditional party structures.  Rather than being immune from ego conflicts, parties of local notables are particularly prone to such problems because they have no dispute resolution or policy making structures. And voters make no allowances for local notables’ lack of political experience, passing harsh judgement on those who stumble over their words in the media, fall out with their colleagues in public or have to pick their drunken teenage son out of a gutter on a Sunday morning.

Whittam Smith’s ideas are a helpful addition to the debate on revitalising our democracy.  He is quite right that we need to draw a wider range of people into public life, not just at the parliamentary level but also in local democracy.  But Whittam Smith would also do well to acknowledge that being a politician isn’t as easy as it looks, and divisions over policy are more stark than ever in these times of crisis.

Campbell’s Queensland Cabal: Is it ever OK to hire your mates?

Imagine the scenario.  You’ve just started new job as leader of Australia’s most decentralised state. You’ve promised to make a difference within 100 days, and everyone is watching.  But there’s just one problem.  Hiring and firing is notoriously bureaucratic in the public sector.  Before you know it, your 100 days will be over and you’ll barely even have a team.

That’s the dilemma facing Queensland’s new Liberal-National Party (LNP) Premier, Campbell Newman.  During his election campaign, he presented himself as an efficient manager, Mr ‘Can-Do’, someone who can get things done.  The LNP’s main election document reads more like a business plan than a manifesto, with highly specific targets for the first one, seven, thirty, fifty and one hundred days in government.

Naturally, the regional media provides daily updates on whether Mr Newman’s targets are being achieved, including a nifty interactive graphic from the Courier Mail.  Apparently, Mr ‘Can-Do’ has already missed four of his first week targets, including a pledge to begin a full audit of Queensland Health’s notorious payroll system.

Given time pressures, it is not surprising that Mr Newman chose to eschew the conventional public service recruitment process during his first days in office.  However, he has come under fire for some of his choices, including former Federal treasurer, Peter Costello, and David Edwards, the son of a former State treasurer who served under Joh Bjelke-Petersen.  The latter is a particularly sensitive appointment, since the Bjelke-Petersen era is seen by many Queenslanders as a by-word for corruption and authoritarianism.

If Mr Newman can be forgiven for hiring long-term allies to help him through the crucial first days of government, his public comments about the matter suggest a negative attitude towards conventional recruitment in general.  According to The Australian, he did not call for open applications because ‘we’ve been processed to death’.  This reflects a lack of understanding of the sensitivity of public service appointments, which may spell trouble for Mr Newman in the future.

It is a natural instinct for humans to trust people that they know.  However, open recruitment has become the norm in public sectors across the democratic world for good reason.  Recruiting from a narrow social pool eventually leads to stagnation.  Talented people are overlooked in favour of others with less ability but the right contacts.  Although swift and easy in the beginning, the closed approach usually leads to poorer performance in the long run.  It is also terrible for social mobility and, in the public sector context, that matters a lot.  The public owns the public services, and it is important that everyone gets a ‘fair go’.

Moreover, all governments make mistakes, but failures are particularly toxic if they are seen to result from nepotism.  Public sectors are rarely as efficient as voters would like, but transparency and accountability are not negotiable where public money is at stake.

Russia: Gubernatorial Elections to be Re-Introduced, Party Registration Requirements Lowered

Following the safe re-election of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency on March 4th, the Russian government looks set to complete yet another round of institutional tinkering.

Gubernatorial elections, abolished in 2004 following the Beslan Crisis, are set to be re-introduced.   Governors will be elected for five year terms, serving a maximum of two terms.  A second reading of the Bill will take place in the near future, and the final shape of the legislation is still uncertain.  There is disagreement between the political parties in the Duma about how the ‘presidential filter’ (consultations between political parties and the President over who can be a candidate) will work.

Meanwhile, the Federation Council has passed legislation aimed at making it easier for political parties to register.  It will now be possible for parties to register with 500 members, instead of 40,000 as previously required.  Eighty-two parties are awaiting registration.

Although these measures have taken some of the heat out of the anti-Putin opposition, they are unlikely to lead to dramatic changes in the Russian political system.  Parties must still receive 7% of the national vote in order to win representation in the Duma, and small parties will not be permitted to form blocs.  Meanwhile, the ‘presidential filter’ will ensure that only candidates friendly to the Kremlin can secure nominations to stand in gubernatorial elections.

If Cash for Cameron is a problem, is state funding the solution?

Revelations that David Cameron courted donors over dinner at Chequers have given British journalists an alliterative field day, with this week’s headlines including ‘Supper for Supporters’, ‘Dinner for Donors’ and, least plausibly, ‘Dave’s Dodgy Diner’.

Of course, this is not the first time that governing parties in Britain have been accused of trading influence for money; one of the most notorious examples was the Cash for Peerages scandal of 2006/2007.  And every time a case like this arises, somebody (usually the Liberal Democrats) always suggests that it is time to consider introducing state funding of political parties.

Most other European democracies have some level of state funding of political parties.  Decisions to provide such subsidies are usually the ‘carrot’ accompanying the legislative ‘stick’ of lower donation limits and increased reporting requirements.  Unfortunately experience on the continent suggests that state funding is no panacea for cleaning up politics.  Just ask the French.

Parties (and sometimes individual politicians) will always seek to maximise their income in order to out-compete their rivals.  Therefore, alternative fundraising doesn’t cease and funding scandals are still a problem.  Indeed, when funding scandals break, they are met with even more public frustration because taxpayers have made significant contributions without seeing the promised improvements in democratic quality.

Moreover, state funding does not necessarily level the playing field in quite the way that smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats might hope.  Funds are usually allocated in one of three ways: per vote received, according to the percentage of votes won, or according to the number of seats won.  Whichever method is chosen, the most electorally successful parties receive the most money, locking in their advantage.

In the current financial climate, it is unlikely that the idea of introducing state subsidies for political parties will catch on in the UK.  If it does, however, the Liberal Democrats must insist that funding is allocated on a ‘per vote’ basis in order to avoid receiving a double blow at the hands of Britain’s majoritarian electoral system.