How parties can develop ideologies – and win votes

Kiran Mathur Mohammed

kmmpub@gmail.com

In effective democracies, politicians argue about what the government does instead of how those policies are carried out. Their governments can be relied on to carry out policies (whether good or bad) without major corruption or mismanagement. If either happens, it is quickly rooted out. Those responsible resign, are fired or go to prison.

Despite two years of national angst, Robert Mueller’s investigation of US President Donald Trump did its job – and democracy rolls on.

Amid the sad crisis of Brexit, the Westminster parliament remains instructive. Yes, Brexit has shown the danger of any executive failing to engage with parliament or its own party. But it also shows that broad cross-bench coalitions can happen when policies are paramount over tribal identity.

In TT, the system does not self-correct, so the national conversation focuses entirely on how things are done: on missed promises, scandals or potential problems.

Some are held to account. Unlike other post-colonial countries, we have not degenerated into anarchy or autocracy. But it does mean that conversations about policy and party ideology are “crowded out” by accusations.

The main parties have yet to define an ideological approach; they certainly don't differ along the traditional left-right divides seen in other countries. In the absence of a distinct approach or ideology, what holds the parties together is party loyalty and criticism of the other side, either of its motives or how it gets things done.

Apart from creating a policy void, the ping-pong back and forth disguises a system that does not serve as a check or balance. People must be loyal to the party machine instead of to their ideology – so they cannot question their own side. And MPs and senators almost never vote against their party.

A strong ideological foundation enables leaders to take more risks or make pragmatic compromises. You have to know the rules before you break them. John McCain’s Republican credentials remained strong even after he cast a decisive vote against repealing the Democrats’ Affordable Care Act.

When reasoned judgement requires that members rebel against party, they can hold to ideology. And when they rebel against ideology, they can hold to party. Real exchanges can happen with the opposition.

As philosopher Edmund Burke put it: “Government and legislation are matters of reason and judgement, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion?”

So how have other parties developed ideologies?

After the fall of communism, the Bulgarian Union of Democratic Forces faced a dilemma. All that held it together was its opposition to the communist regime. So its leaders drafted a charter of principles which was debated and finally approved at a party convention. This turned out to be broadly centre-right.

The Philippines’ Liberal Party even partnered with a think tank and runs seminars on liberal democratic principles for its members. USAID and the National Democratic Institute cite both in their handy guide to Developing Party Policies.

It is in our parties’ selfish interest to do the same. If they do so, they can capture a large block of disillusioned but well-informed voters who currently don’t vote, or vote without enthusiasm for the other side.

However, after many years of disenchantment people also want to be heard. The UK and the EU both have popular petition systems (an anti-Brexit petition is almost six million and counting). Beyond a minimum threshold, the petition must be considered by Parliament for debate. Our parliament should do the same.

Change.org boasts that its petition site results in one policy change each hour. One of them was my (cleverer) sister Anika Mathur Mohammed’s petition to ban polluting polystyrene.

Technology is transforming democracy. Part of the reason Italy’s Five Star movement has been so successful was its online engagement. It launched a portal that allowed members to propose and edit laws, as well as to put themselves forward and select candidates in online ballots.

The 2018 World e-Parliament report has interesting examples. Brazilian startup Câmara dos Deputados – EDO enables users to find members with voting profiles that match theirs. Citizens can search MPs’ profiles, follow their activities in the chamber and compare them. Hungarian app K-Monitor shows the issues most commented upon by Hungarian parliamentarians since 1990.

If our parties engage, the evolution and development of their ideas will be exciting. The PP could cast itself as a centre-left party, with its unionist history. The PNM could cast itself as a centre-right party focused on fiscal discipline. Or the opposite. We would be part of political evolution in action. Either way, the conversation will shift away from extraction – and towards growth.

Kiran Mathur Mohammed is a social entrepreneur, economist and businessman. He is a former banker, and a graduate of the University of Edinburgh