« The word according to Straw | Main | White might not be right »
October 25, 2006
Taking democratic lessons from Hugo Chavez
This blog entry is inspired by my recent watching of "The Revolution will not be Televised" - a riveting and inspiring documentary charting the attempted coup against Venezualan President Hugo Chavez and the popular uprising that saw Chavez regain power.
As the Lords reform stuff rumbles on, one point is quite salient in Jack Straw's leaked document: at no point is the decision on what electoral system to use going to be opened out to the people for consultation or agreement. Instead, it will be a political fix from above: trying to find a system that the Tories and Labour can both just about agree on. This appears remarkably similar to the government's review of electoral systems already introduced into UK, which has never sought the views of the public or opened up its consultation beyond Whitehall.
A big missed opportunity. There is the principle of democracy - and thus our voting system - should be in the hands of the people. But, even more than that, there is the practical benefits of when people really do feel that they have a stake in their political institutions and have a sense of ownership and empowerment.
That is one of the big lessons we could learn from Hugo Chavez. He introduced a written constitution when he took power and began a process not just of educating Venezualan citizens about the contents, but also of how they could use the constitution to empower themselves and better their lives. Many citizens took that 'little book' to their hearts. So when Chavez was overthrown in a coup, they - in their millions - willingly drew on what was written in their constitution to defend democracy and reinstate the rightful president.
Taking a less extreme example, the US constitution is a revered document not just by politicians but but most citizens as well; who feel that it is part of their national identity and way of life. Isn't it time that people here in this country were more explicitly involved in a compact on how the country is governed and felt they had a greater sense of ownership of the process and institutions? Perhaps that should be the Britishness that Gordon Brown and others are trying to define?
Posted by malcolmclark on October 25, 2006
