One of the new bills included in this year's Queen's Speech is supposed to make the political system more "accountable".
Of course, the fact that this bill should be announced by a "queen" - in the 21st century(!) - is, in and of itself, an absurdity. What could be less "accountable" than a bunch of royals who live a parasitic existence on taxpayers' money - just because they happen to belong to a family which managed to hijack political power centuries ago?
One thing's for sure, though: this bill won't provide for kicking out the royals, once and for all, nor halting their luxurious life on public benefits. Even if that would have been a good starting point!
"Accountable"? To themselves maybe...
The new bill will make it possible for 10% of registered voters in a constituency to force the re-election of their MP by signing a petition.
The ConDems are playing it very safe. Not many MPs are ever likely to come under this threat. Using last week's Newark by-election (with a high 53% turnout) as a measure, getting 10% of registered voters to sign a petition would mean getting 19% of all Newark voters to sign, almost 1 in 5!
Putting together such a large petition without polling stations, would be an impossible task for individuals and even groups. And, contrary to the usual hype, the internet and social networks wouldn't help at constituency level. Only the machineries of the big parties have the required resources for such an operation.
But there's even more hypocrisy in this so-called "accountability" bill. In fact, the right to recall an MP via a petition would apply only to MPs who are given jail sentences, or who have been accused by the Commons of engaging in "serious wrongdoing". What is "serious wrongdoing"? There are so many things that MPs consider "normal"! For instance, would breaking election promises be treated as "serious wrongdoing"? It certainly is in most voters' view. But it won't qualify - otherwise the whole House would kicked out! And yet, isn't this the most elementary "accountability"?
What's more, as a last protection against irate voters, the ConDems plan to ensure that the Commons retains a veto - meaning that even if a petition manages to reach the required number of signatures, it's still likely to end up in the bin!
For workers' control
Of course, real accountability - not just for MPs but for all of those who have any responsibility in society - would be something quite different.
It would start at the point where all wealth is being created - in the workplaces. Making the system "accountable" to the workers who are producing this wealth would mean that they should exercise direct control over the numbers employed, the hours and shift patterns worked, the wages payed, etc. They should be able to make decisions as a function of their collective interests, based on all information available.
For instance, more likely than not, they would raise wages to a decent level for all, based on real needs, with regular increments based on real verifiable price increases, rather than massaged inflation indices. They would end unnecessary unsocial hours and night work - all of which are just killers even for the most healthy. And they would share the work available, without loss of pay, between all available hands, including those of the jobless coming to the gates in search of a job. This would certainly reduce significantly the bosses' profits. But that's exactly the point: profits cannot coexist with "accountability" in society!
On the scale of the economy as a whole, "accountability" would mean an end to the commercial secrecy behind which the capitalists conceal their predatory parasitism on the economy. The working class would open companies' books. Then it would become clear what is socially useful - workers' labour - and what is not - that tiny layer of parasites who own everything, screw every bit of profit it can out of the working class and make a terrible mess out of the economy due to their greed.
Such "accountability" is not day-dreaming. It was imposed twice in history. First, in 1871, when the Parisian working class took over control of Paris, setting up their own "Commune". The second time was in 1917, when Russian workers formed elected councils or "soviets" in order to control society and reorganise it as a function of their interests.
Today, we are far better equipped than the Parisian and Russian workers were, to do this. For the working class to impose its control over society is a first step to get rid of the profiteers, once and for all. And it is the only way forward!