LONDON — One question perplexing politicians in the United
Kingdom has been the question of voter turnout, which once again
hovered around the sixty percent mark at last year’s general
election and dipped even lower in a by-election a few months
later.
A range of remedies have been considered — from extending the
use of postal ballots to lowering the voting age to 16. Yet though
it is undoubtedly true that there is still much to be done to make
politics more transparent and accessible, voters need to remember
that it works both ways.
It has become almost fashionable for many voters simply to say
“they’re all the same” while barely considering whether this is
really the case, and the stigma that once seemed to be attached to
such nonchalance maybe 30 years ago appears to be gone.
But in their efforts to better engage with the electorate,
policy makers must avoid the temptation to pretend that politics
will always be revolutionary and exciting. Perhaps the fairest
criticism of Tony Blair is that he led the public to expect too
much too quickly and the Labour Party was punished at the polls
last year partly as a consequence of the resulting
disillusionment.
More importantly, politicians must not pretend that there are
easy answers to every problem and that it is just a matter of
having the will to solve them. This simplistic attitude manifests
itself most clearly in “single issue” or protest candidates who act
as if governing can be boiled down to one cause and that every
other issue will somehow solve itself. Politics is a complicated
business and boiling down the worth of a candidate to a single idea
demeans other important issues and lowers the level of intelligent
political debate.
The dangers of such voting patterns are encapsulated in the
Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow, George Galloway,
and his decision to spend time as an elected official holed up in a
house so he could appear on “Big Brother.”
Mr. Galloway already had a reputation amongst many of his
colleagues and the media as arrogant and self-aggrandizing, but his
decision to appear on the British reality TV program still
surprised many, especially in his constituency.
It shouldn’t have. Throughout his career he has thrived on
controversy, from the time he famously told Saddam Hussein “I
salute your courage” to inciting Arabs to fight against British
troops in Iraq. He has also been caught up in storms about taking
cash from the Iraqi government. Though none of these allegations
have yet been proven — the Daily Telegraph lost a libel
case last year over the issue — many still feel there is an awful
lot of smoke for there not to be fire.
So how did such a controversial figure manage to find his way
back into Parliament after his old constituency was redrawn out of
existence? By running on an antiwar platform in a London borough
with a large Muslim population. Of course doing so meant running
against Oona King — one of only two black females in the 646-seat
House of Commons.
Mr. Galloway therefore claimed that his effort to unseat Ms.
King was motivated by her support of the war in Iraq and her close
identification with the Prime Minister. Yet she was neither a
member of the cabinet nor involved in the planning of the war. If
Mr. Galloway was simply interested in making an anti-war statement
he could have run against the Foreign or Defence Secretary. Instead
he was involved in a nasty election campaign that exacerbated
racial tension in the constituency and decided to run against a
woman who by most accounts was a hard working constituency MP.
And how did Gorgeous George, as he is sometimes known, repay
this leap of faith by the people of Bethnal Green? By grandstanding
at a Senate hearing in the U.S., apparently relishing his moment in
the media spotlight there, and then taking part in an ongoing TV
show while Parliament was in session. It is difficult to imagine
that 24-hour coverage in an East London house is what the
electorate had in mind when they chose to send Mr. Galloway to
Westminster. And it has surely been a setback for efforts to
improve the image of politicians when someone places egotism ahead
of serving those voters who put him there.
Bethnal Green has serious problems. It is one of the poorest
constituencies in the country and some wards have serious housing
and drug issues to address. For the thousands of Labour,
Conservative, and Liberal Democratic voters, I therefore feel sorry
— they have missed out on the opportunity to have an effective and
dedicated advocate in Parliament. But for those that chose Mr.
Galloway or who didn’t bother to vote at all? They have got what
they deserved.
