BY JOHN DREWRY

I make no apologies for using this somewhat over-egged phrase because, from my perspective, we’ve reached a critical juncture whereby it is no longer sufficient to point, accuse and moan, but to actually suggest action or at least a path towards.

Many will already know that the provenance of enemy of the people isn’t Ibsen’s play title but in fact goes back to ancient Rome, when hostis publicus was levelled by the Senate at Nero and Caesar. Robespierre used it against the monarchy, Donald Trump against the fake news of the mainstream media, and Shakespeare addresses it in Coriolanus. It is also bowdlerised and misused by every tyrant, labelling anyone who challenges or disagrees with them as an enemy of the people. Stalin, Mao and Hitler all did this. We ourselves have moved dangerously close to such inversion more recently – remember the attempts to brand the unvaccinated as the enemy of granny and the rest of us.

The increasingly perceived alienation of Parliament from the people it purportedly has been elected to serve illustrates the very opposite of a progressive, dynamic country, and instead paints a picture of enemies on both sides – the dictator and the dictated to.

What to do about it? Well, I certainly wouldn’t propose the mindless, bloody solution, despite a vociferous growth in expressing such emotion, born largely from helpless frustration. Is it any wonder that people feel this way, when every decision emanating from Westminster seems to be opposite to the common interest? ‘It’s for your protection, health and security’ cuts little ice nowadays, and as for ‘It’s for the greater good’, I’ve yet to meet an individual who has benefited from the greater good.

The first thing to do, surely, is to properly identify the enemy. It’s too bland to say ‘the government’ or ‘Westminster’, and in fact that ducks the issue. After all, what is it that makes them the enemy? Equally, it passes the buck to suggest that more hidden, malign influences lurk in the shadows, infiltrating governments and institutions, and dictating events. That may be so, to a greater or lesser extent, but how do you get hold of that? And in any case, I don’t believe it gets to the true source of the problem.

Most surely, it’s the desire to acquire and hold onto power that drives everything. So, power itself is the enemy, and to use another hackneyed phrase, ‘power corrupts’, or more subtly, ‘power IS corrupt’. Yet I put it to the reader that this still doesn’t get to the root of the problem. ‘The power to do what? is the question. To me, the answer to that is it’s the power of the chamber as a voting chamber, and the party whips who run it. The power of the vote. And Occam’s Razor tells me that the solution is simple – remove the vote from them and give it to the people.

I’m not suggesting a referendum on all or any issues, that is totally impractical as well as phenomenally expensive. It’s much simpler than that. Just as with the courts, a jury is randomly summoned from the general populace every, say, two weeks, sits in Parliament, listens to the debates, withdraws to the jury room, and returns with its verdict – aye or nay. MPs debate, as they do now, for and against, just like barristers, then hand over to twelve good and true citizens for the decision.

The rush to object that it’s far too complex for ordinary folk (the clarion call of every bureaucrat who ever walked the earth) is somewhat specious. After all, if twelve good and true can decide the fate of an individual (which can include life behind bars and, until relatively recent times, the death penalty), who’s to really say that legislation is more important than that? Secondly, it’s up to MPs to present their cases, based on their experience and their research, in an open, cogent manner. We don’t need their votes – we need them to draft and implement approved legislation, in conjunction with the Civil Service. Isn’t that what we pay them for?

Much as I’d like to, therefore, I wouldn’t propose trying to change the party system, Parliamentary structure or constituency politics. Change one thing only – who gets to vote on proposed legislation? It goes back to the people, via a jury of their peers.

And talking about peers, what about the very necessary second chamber, currently known as the House of Lords? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Certainly not a bloated, remote, ermine-clad institution. Again, I wouldn’t propose anything as tectonic as wiping them off the face of the earth. Not practical. Leave them to debate and pontificate, but remove and replace their voting capacity. Instil a similar jury system.

Thus, we commoners are randomly summoned to be an essential part of the democratic process of our country by serving for a couple of weeks on first or second chamber juries, delivering the verdicts on our proposed futures without interfering with the processes of government.

John Drewry has a background in marketing, owning and chairing an advertising agency for many years. He also holds an Equity card as a stage director and actor, and is Patron & Presenter for the Nursing Memorial Appeal.