Should "conscience votes" override the will of the people.

So, we have is a predictable debate in the Liberal party over whether there should be a “conscience vote” on the subject of gay marriage. On both sides, Liberal and Labor, there are arguments that the party should formulate an official, binding position on the issue as set by the party's membership and its various governing committees and the electorate itself. 

This raises several question, and misconceptions, about how democracy works – or is supposed to work.

One letter to the paper recently said, to paraphrase, “I didn't vote for my local member to vote for what he or she thinks is right, I expect him or her to vote for what I want.”

In a similar vein, at least one Liberal backbencher has said, again in paraphrase, “It’s not up to the front benchers to decide what they think is right – they are supposed to abide by the policies as agreed on by the party organisation.”

Okay. So let’s get a couple of things straight about democracy.

Democracy is not about electing politicians to do whatever the electorate wants. It is about electing people who will act wisely and honestly on the basis of the best information available. In other words, they are people elected on their ability and their character: they are not just delegates charged with voting in a particular way. Yes, of course politicians campaign on the basis of specific policies and promises. It has become increasingly necessary for politicians to employ a “try before you buy” approach to electioneering where they foreshadow the policies they will or will not endorse. This is however a poor basis for electing someone. For a start,  the issues that are topical at the time of the election will change their complexion over time and most politicians will eventually be forced to dishonour or heavily modify the promises they made on the hustings. More importantly, although they might be elected on one issue, members of the Parliament are required to vote on all the bills that come before the house. As we have seen recently, single-issue parties and candidates are often dangerously out of their depth when it comes to general legislative matters.

Of course, the idea of a parliament of wise, honest independents considering each case on its merits is all but impossible under the party system. The party system evolved because it became clear that, by joining into alliances with others, politicians could get their bills passed via mutual tit-for-tat support - you vote for my bill, I'll vote for yours. But parties require funding and support and therefore need rank-and-file (i.e. non-elected) members.  Australian electoral rules require parties to have minimum membership to qualify for registration. If the members of the party were there simply to run raffles and staff information booths, politics would be simpler but, as it has turned out, the members of the parties have come to believe that they make the policies of the party. I have heard members of political parties explicitly state “We make the policies and the parliamentary wing is just there to carry them out.”

And that is a scary thought.

I cannot imagine a more frightening situation than the elected members of the Liberal, National and Labor Parties being held to the policies formulated by their parties’ rank-and-file members.

The reason for that is simple. A lot of the members of political parties are simply nuts.

People join political parties for many different reasons. For some it's a social club; for others a chance to make business contacts; because they hope to stand for election; because they are passionate about some cause, or just concerned over the way things are. Whatever ideas people might have when they join a party, if they are among the few that are elected to the parliament, they learn that government is the art of compromise, moderation and incremental change. To win government in Australia you have to win the middle ground and that means forsaking extreme positions. This is why, inevitably, the policies of the major parties are much more similar than many of the rank and file members on either side would like them to be. The parliamentary wings of the parties, for example, realise that they that dare not criticise the other sides' policies too much because they might have to adopt those same policies at some point in the future.

Before politicians convince the electorate of the necessity for many policies, they first have to convince the members of their own parties.

The notion of elected representatives echoing the majority wishes of their electorates is not democracy, it is just mob rule. And the idea of those elected members obediently carrying out the will of their parties’ memberships and back-benchers is also not good government. A conscience vote is not some sort of anomaly running contrary to the principles of the Westminster system. Just the opposite: it is one of the few times a parliament acts as it might in an ideal world.