Democracy under threat

ALL over the UK this weekend, Members of Parliament will be holding their surgeries. Rural MPS, in particular, will drive to church halls and scout huts, private houses and makeshift offices, all to be more readily available to constituents who live in villages and small market towns. It’s an important, but largely unsung part of our democracy, and is made all the more important by our electoral system: one member, one seat.

It’s the result of the first-past-the-post method of electing representatives, which leads to the valued concept that, once elected, an MP represents every one of his or her constituents, irrespective of how they voted. Each is the MP for a distinct geographical area—alone and not one of a group. That special link with a place is exemplified by the new MP’S maiden speech that, by tradition, concentrates on the particularities of their patch and the merits of their predecessor, even if they were of a different political party and tipped out by the very person now commending them.

It was in pursuit of the ideal of impartial representation that Sir David Amess was in the Methodist church in Leigh-on-sea, Essex, where he met his death. His attacker knew he would be there because surgery times and venues are widely advertised, precisely because they are intended to be a key part of the relationship between MP and constituents.

Even in largely urban seats such as Southend West, good MPS know how important it is for communities that feel themselves distinct not to feel that their separateness is ignored. This is even more the case in the countryside, where small towns and villages need to feel valued and where it is often those most needing help who find it hardest to travel.

Not every MP is as assiduous as this, of course, but, for the most part and, irrespective of party, this is the pattern. Terrorism and the fear of terrorism must not drive them to change it. The nation must protect and provide for their representatives to do their jobs.

It has rightly been decided not to give unnecessary information about the movements of Mps—that’s why their published expenses claims are redacted. We pay for them to drive to their advice bureaux, but there is no reason why their patterns of travel should be available to those bent on harm. However, the threat should never result in restricting our access to the people we choose to govern us.

We recognise that nothing can entirely protect public figures in a world where extremists believe they have a duty to kill. What we’ve failed to understand, however, is that the threat will increase unless we take urgent action more widely. Extremism is fed by social media, which normalises the wildest views and the most perverted of beliefs.

People who once felt that their theories or desires set them apart from others now learn through the internet that they are not alone. What would have been an outrageous statement in the pub becomes reasonable in the ether, where views and desires are shared by others. The solitary is no longer alone. Actions, however extreme, can be justified because they are shared and protected by anonymity.

It is here that we must act. No newspaper or leaflet may be published without the real name and address of the publisher. The same should apply to the internet. Anonymity feeds bullying and abuse and, finally, violence. This is not liberty, but licence. The internet publisher must be named and be responsible for the content of his publication.

Terrorism and the fear of terrorism must not drive MPS to change