A Tory leadership race would have been an undemocratic travesty

So, Theresa May won her vote of no confidence, narrowly avoiding a leadership race and fresh political uncertainty. Whether or not this is a good thing is arguable, but one unequivocal positive is that we have avoided a travesty of democracy.

If the prime minister had lost the no confidence vote last night, it would have been the first time in our history that a prime minister was directly chosen by party members. It would have meant under 100,000 Conservative Party members wielding enormous, unprecedented power over the fate of the country and the direction of Brexit. The most pivotal leadership contest in living memory would have been the most undemocratic imaginable.

The prime minister governs 66+ million of us, yet a new PM would have been selected by a tiny minority who, by paying for membership, become an extraordinarily privileged mini-electorate. The nature of the current Tory membership is such that they completely unrepresentative of the country, and not even that representative of the 13.6 million people who voted Tory in 2017. They are mostly old, white and from the south. The grey-haired brigade with an unusual dedication to politics would have held all the cards.

This minority of people do not answer to the rest of the electorate, we don’t know their names, they will vote in total secrecy and will not be held accountable for the choices they make. With an ongoing debate about democracy, be it the nature of British democracy or the democratic credentials of the European Union, it’s difficult to deny that this would have been an affront and an absurdity.

The leadership election was to be fought on huge national issues and would have led to a fundamental change in policy. What kind of Brexit will we have? What kind of economy will we aim for? Do leave with the deal on the table? A basic Free Trade Agreement? No deal at all? These decisions would affect all our lives and yet ultimately, we would have been powerless without a membership card.

The reason members are given the privilege of voting for their leadership is understandable. This is one of the few major benefits of becoming a member and it’s used as a means of attracting people to pay up and get involved. However, by seeking to improve internal party democracy by empowering members the political parties have stumbled into a system which is profoundly undemocratic on a national level.

Yes, the Labour Party has many more members, but this doesn’t much improve the democratic process. The combined membership of the four largest political parties make up a mere 2% of the electorate yet they hold grossly disproportionate power which completely distorts our democracy.

Those select few party members stand outside of our democratic system, making crucial decisions without transparency or accountability. This is especially problematic when the Labour Party has been infiltrated and taken over by the Far Left, and you have populist groups like Leave.eu seeking to infiltrate the Conservatives.

As there seems to be little prospect to returning to the old days of mass party membership it would clearly be more democratic, transparent and sensible to have elected MPs choose their leader, particularly in cases where they are directly selecting the prime minister. At least MPs can be held to account for the choice they make.

If Theresa May had been toppled last night, most of the country would have had no choice but to look on powerless as a tiny minority of people essentially chose our Brexit policy, fundamentally changing all of our futures according to their own desires.

Imagine if a leader had been selected pledging to leave the EU without a deal, with all the risks that entails, all because of the whims of that minority. It would have been a democratic outrage and their government would be unstable in the face of vehement opposition. In that respect, we’ve had a lucky escape this time.