Why voting is a waste of time
JAMIE W HYTE
When you can ballot with your wallet, who needs a pencil on the end of a
bit of string?
LAST WEEK Hazel Blears told a conference that our democracy is under
threat — not, this time, from an Islamist suicide bomb but from a “demographic
timebomb”. Young people are not interested in politics, the chairman of the
Labour Party told us. At the last election only 37 per cent of them voted.
To lament political apathy is popular with those who are not apathetic. Worthy
governmental commissions dedicate themselves to finding ways of reengaging youth. Ms Blears, for example, believes that we must abolish such
youth-alienating practices as “voting with pencils attached with string” and
having minutes read out at party meetings
Very silly. Yet her big mistake lies not in the proposed remedies but in the alleged ailment.
Political apathy is perfectly healthy.
To see why, consider how my father-in-law lost his political apathy. By means that my wife
cannot clarify, my father-in-law found himself in possession of a diamond mine in Zaire (now the
Democratic Republic of Congo) in the 1970s. This was a very pleasant circumstance until one
day he was arrested and imprisoned without charge. After a few weeks President Mobutu
visited him in prison to explain his crime. Put simply, he had failed to cut Mobutu in.
In Africa, a businessman cannot afford to be politically apathetic. He may have a marvellous
product and eager customers, but that will not suffice for success. Unless he also has the
politicians on side, his business will fail.
In Britain, unlike most African nations, we enjoy the rule of law. This immediately makes politics
relatively unimportant. We can go about our lawful business whether or not government officials
are “on our team”. When you see all those Africans celebrating in the streets after an election,
do not simply rejoice in the spread of democracy — sympathise for the losers who are about to
be shafted.
We also enjoy sound economic policy in Britain. No important political party would return to
nationalised industry, printing money to pay off government debt or using monetary policy to
regulate the exchange rate. This intellectual progress makes the choice of political party less
important than it used to be. On these issues there is no point voting. If we could make similar
progress in other areas of policy — in healthcare, education and welfare — then the choice of
political party would become even less important, and even fewer young or otherwise sensible
people would bother to vote.
This is not only because voting becomes pointless when all parties converge on the correct
policies. It is also because of what the correct policies are. We are today invited by each of the
large parties to believe that they can run our nationalised healthcare and education systems
better than their competitors can. Perhaps there really is some significant difference in their
management skills. Then there may be some small point in voting.
But suppose our political parties recognised the folly of their agreed command economy model
for healthcare and education. Then their management abilities would be no more relevant to the
“public services” than they are to the car industry. And, again, we would have less reason to
care which party was in power. Market liberalism, like the rule of law, reduces the importance of
politics. When you can vote with your wallet, you do not need to vote with a pencil attached with
string.
According to Marx, the State would inevitably wither after the proletarian revolution. That was a
strange idea. As history has demonstrated, arranging society in the way Marxists prefer requires
an almighty State. The liberal-constitutional model, however, does allow for the withering of
politics, if not of the State. Once the correct legal framework and free-market policies are in
place, there is little for politicians to do. And, hence, little for voters to do. Government ministers
might well lament this development, but I cannot see why the rest of us should.
Of course, we have not arrived at this ideal point yet. Government still manages a large portion
of our affairs. So it may seem both strange and regrettable that voter turnout is declining. It is
neither. When the large parties differ so little in their policies, it is not at all strange that people
do not vote. And the fact that the major parties offer the same policies is not regrettable, it is
convenient.
Opinion polling techniques have improved to the point where all parties know in advance which
policies are likely to secure a majority (or the biggest minority) of votes. So, in our “first past the
post” system, all offer the same policies. If you are in the minority that does not agree with these
policies, you have not been injured by the resulting lack of choice. You have been saved what
would have been a wasted trip to the polling booth. In our new marketing-style politics, the
majority still rules, but without having to actually vote.
Democracy is required to defend our liberty and prosperity. When the people cannot remove a
government, it is sure to descend into despotism, corruption and inefficiency. But we should not
confuse our love of democracy with a love of voting and other forms of political engagement.
Political engagement is worthwhile only when there are political problems.
The vote is like a fire escape: good to have but, ideally, never used.