end of democracy

Hardcore politics – it's all over the BBC. Casual observers, of which I am not one (to get this out of the way), might be excused for believing that the nation that started modern democracy as we know it when it published the Magna Carta in 1215 has completely lost it. The BBC gave the word to a Nigerian anti-corruption campaigner the other day. He complained that if the U.K. continues as it has, how is his organization going to put the pressure on the Nigerian government and society. What is really going on?

It is more exciting than yet another incarnation of the Star Trek franchise, if you ask me. The U.K. likes to see itself as organized, reasonable, level-minded. The English are proud of their democracy. They know it's the best system in the world.

Recently, however, this belief has been shaken, shocked, nearly ruined by what's been coming out of Parliament. First – and I don't claim to be a rigorous chronicler of the recent past – there was the government minister who submitted receipts to get reimbursed for porn movies. When it turned out that it was her husband that ordered the movies, ridicule was added to outrage, but no personal consequences were drawn. The minister is still minister.

Then there were the emails that one of Prime Minster Gordon Brown's most trusted aids intended to send out. They were full off baseless allegations against members of the Conservative Party, full of personal attacks and lies conceived to the defame the character of opposition politicians. The emails were published in the news, and their story was told before they could be sent out.

By that time, most U.K. citizens were listening. What would be the next in the row of government failures? It came out of nowhere. The top anti-terrorist cop was photographed exiting his vehicle on the way to Downing Street. No big deal? Well, he carried the plans for a substantial anti-terror operation under his arm, the details clearly legible through the photographers' lenses. Amidst, again, much ridicule, the man stepped down, but the damage was done to the government.

Despite their severity, these snafus were all weathered spectacularly well. It didn't look like anything could really damage the government. But then, no one could have expected the storm of public outrage that broke when The Daily Telegraph (not a newspaper worth reading, I believe) published details of Members of Parliament's reimbursement claims. Average Joe (not a plumber because those are Polish here and don't vote) is incensed that politicians claim expenses for homes they have purchased and will sell for profit, that cleaners come around the prime minister's second home thanks to the taxpayer's generosity, that dog food and replacement sofas are eligible for expense claims.

Inevitably, the politicians that find themselves in the news for fraudulent (yes, yes, yes!) claims assert that these claims were legitimate, within the system, not at all illegal and fully reasonable and justifiable. And this discrepancy between the politicians' self-understanding and the public's perception of it is what's most shocking. How can politicians hide behind the system when it is exactly that system that fostered the kind of misbehavior that outrages the public? They legislated the system. What does it mean that they move within it? (Here it needs to be pointed out, with awe and gratefulness, that the Telegraph is exposing fraudsters across the political spectrum.)

Since the publication of these expense claim details, with name, amount and a copy of the receipt, exasperation has suffused the country and quickly spread to distant shores. The Nigerian anti-corruption activist mentioned above is just one example. I, on the other hand, am too busy considering the various implications of the scandal to get overly infuriated about it. The ramifications are manifold and too many questions are bouncing around my head.

How are parliamentarians' costs reimbursed in other countries, for example. Every member of parliament has to be in two places, his home constituency and the place where parliament is held. Is there a parliament's dorm in Berlin? Are nights at the Capitol Hill Hilton reimbursed in the US? I don't know, but it can surely not be expected of politicians to pay their own way. How is this regulated?

Another questions concerns a knee-jerk reaction by some pathologically over-sensitive politicians. They called for a police investigation to establish the identity of the person responsible for the leak to the newspaper of the information, and this really riles me. How can you go after someone that points out how rotten a system is, unless you're so irreversibly entangled in the system that you cannot hope to ever extricate yourself.

An investigation will go ahead, it has been reported, but not into the identity of the whistle-blower. Instead, all parliamentary expense claims submitted within the last few years will be scrutinized and validated. In the near future, the whole system is liable to be overhauled. Herein lies a clear positive aspect of this story. Democracy is healthy and very strong in the U.K. The BBC is sharply attuned to public opinion and stunningly capable of giving it a voice. There is very little politicians can get away with. The magnitude of the outcry over the recent shenanigans is a powerful reminder of how strong democracy is here, of what a great place to live this is. And the radio rocks.