The new political Salariat

My image of a new political salariat was originally no more than a doodle, right here on this Website.  But subsequent events have confirmed that perception, reinforced by the work of a Fabian journalist Geoff Mungham, Lecturer at the Cardiff College of Journalism, to whom I am most grateful for further insights into the process of professionalisation.   The idea is evolving… 

My perception is now of a new profession, coming to resemble my own profession of the Bar.  It is perhaps no coincidence that there are almost 100 lawyers in Parliament, mostly in the Commons - for the two professions have much in common. 

Historically, the Bar itself commenced as an unremunerated voluntary activity, a matter of noblesse oblige, the pursuit of gentlemen who were considered to deploy their greater learning for the public good, just as MPs used to do.  Quite early in the development of the legal system, however, it became clear that some remuneration would be necessary, even though for gentlemen it was strictly infra dig actually to handle cash (the same tradition continues with our dear Queen…)   The Barrister’s gown to this very day is embellished with a vestigial pouch, worn over the left shoulder, into which grateful Clients were encouraged to slip the odd sovereign, as a contribution to Bar expenses.  No Barrister would ever touch the money, you understand – indeed, to this day the practice of fee negotiation is always left to the Barrister’s Clerk, now a mini-profession of its own.   

The process of professionalisation is always with us.  And with elected positions now well-paid, our representatives are perceptibly forming themselves into a separate profession, to facilitate their command of that salary resource. They seek to control entry, to ensure that only “people like them” are allowed to set foot on the ladder, hence Labour’s preoccupation with Party “Lists”, and growing intervention in local CLP discretion, “parachuting”, rigged gender-priority lists, late nominations and the like.  Other Parties have similar procedures, if without the same sense of urgency. This all makes it easier for the leaders of the profession to dragoon the younger generations into line, both to support them in their prime, and to nourish them in their inevitable decline.  All professions do the same.   

Democracy is growing a new profession of salaried tribune, before our very eyes.  Their pupils and wannabees are, as always, the most zealous to preserve the privileges and powers of the cadre. And they are all becoming adept at their only relevant skill, namely working as a team and getting re-elected as often as possible.  Individuality is frowned upon, “team qualities” preferred.  Ideology is inconvenient, just as it is among the management cadres of our great trading corporations.  All the tell-tale signs of professionalisation are there. 

Indeed, the time has come to consider the consequences of this process for the rest of us, and for the electorate at large.  How are the citizens to “control” this new political cadre?  Because its very emergence poses new political and constitutioanl problems. Where do they leave the ordinary citizen, whose tribunes may be pursuing other goals?  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Where does that leave the rank-and-file of the present political parties?  Martin Kettle (writing in The Guardian) is perceptive – “In one sense, modern politics has moved beyond parties.  In another, the political columnists have become a party in themselves”.   

My perception is that political parties, including the Labour Party, have already been hi-jacked by the new salariat, and that they are assiduously digging themselves in.  Wider Party membership is declining, but the salariat doesn’t care.  Elections are no longer won or lost by any form of local organisational initiative.  And the State funding of political parties would further de-couple the salariat from the Party membership as a whole.  If I were a Party leader, I would find a small Party membership infinitely preferable to the doomed pretensions of a large membership “in the country at large”.  

This is new political territory.  Indeed, I think the die is already cast.  I think it is inevitable that political parties will become recruitment agencies for the salariat, to which all wannabees and their associates will have belong.  Thereafter, the function of parties will simply be to retain their team in power, regardless of political content. Political parties will reduce in size, and focus principally on the process of recruitment and power retention.  There would seem to be no room, within this model, for the traditional mass-membership Party – whether Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat.   Party Conferences have, after all, already become display-cases for the salariat.  Constituency Parties are being hollowed out by age and declining enthusiasms, and left to stagnate.   

Counter-measures are vital.  Ordinary political activists should seek to keep open the right of the “grass-roots” local Parties to nominate their own candidates for salariat status.  We should seek to maximise devolution, which will at least dilute the damage capable of being done by salariat corruption and the abuse of power.  Political activists will have to deploy all the skills of lobbying, mobilising pressure upon a political salariat peculiarly susceptible to public pressure.  Within the salariat, competing parties will have competing images and styles, designed to appeal to the electorate as a whole, in whatever style is currently in favour. 

Now – I am not complaining about that.  There is nothing wrong with such a model, provided that citizens at large remain entirely free to organise their lobbies and pressure groups.  Indeed, a genuine salariat would be far easier to influence than (say) a Cabinet of gentlemen of independent means. The very dependence of the salaries (accent missing) on their political office should make them more sensitive to public opinion, not less.  So such a system would have its own dynamics, its own checks and balances, its own sensitivities.   

The $64,000 question is this: Do we have such a system already?