Will Democracy Survive?

From No. 10 Downing Street last week came a long-expected announcement. Using the tradition-honed phrases, spokesmen for Prime Minister Harold Wilson declared that "Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify that she will comply" with his request to dissolve Parliament on Sept. 20 and hold elections on Oct. 10. The campaign machinery instantly shifted into high gear. Party leaders appeared on television, and more than 2,000 candidates headed for the hustings to begin three weeks of intensive politicking.

British voters greeted Wilson's announcement with about as much enthusiasm as they would show for a soccer game between two fourth-division losers. For them, the campaign must seem frustratingly dej`a vu. It was only seven months ago that they went to the same polls to vote for the same parties on what may appear to them to be the same issues. Britain's problems, however, have grown considerably worse since then. The country not only faces what all party leaders agree is the worst economic crisis in 40 years, but also is suffering from a political malaise that some observers fear could threaten the existence of parliamentary democracy. It is, in short, a crisis of Churchillian dimensions --but no Winston Churchill is in sight. Instead, the voters will choose as their next Prime Minister a tired and familiar old face: either cunning, pragmatic Laborite Wilson, 58; schoolmasterly bachelor Edward Heath, 58, the Conservatives' leader; or likable but inexperienced Liberal Jeremy Thorpe, 45, who is a very dark horse indeed.

The dissolution of the Wilson government--the shortest-lived British Parliament of this century--was a result of the electorate's failure last February to give any party a majority in the House of Commons. Wilson, having led a minority government since then, is gambling that Labor will emerge from the elections in firm control of Parliament. Yet it is far from certain that any party will win a parliamentary majority. Polls last week gave Labor 42% of the vote, Conservatives 34%, and Liberals 20.5%, but another standoff is possible.

Britain can ill afford another minority government. More than anything else, it needs a Cabinet with enough strength and confidence to confront the country's economic problems: inflation approaching a rate of 20% annually, 700,000 unemployed now and an expected 1 million out of work next year (4% of the work force), a stock market that has plunged to a 16-year low, and a balance of payments deficit that could top $10 billion this year.

A Bank of England report last week cited some of the weaknesses that plague British corporations and could trigger a rash of bankruptcies: chronically low profit margins, diminished cash flow and tight money. Just as the bank's report appeared, London's financial community learned that Ferranti, a leading electronics and defense contractor, could not meet its obligations and had exhausted its lines of credit. Financiers in the City immediately began to worry about which company would be next.

Part of the problem is that many Britons do not yet realize quite how serious an economic problem their nation faces. Shops are packed with goods. "That casual visitor looking too intently for scars of crisis on the face of London," observes TIME Correspondent Herman Nickel, "takes the risk of being hit by a Rolls-Royce while crossing Bond Street." Britain has been able to maintain its living standard as high as it has largely because it has borrowed large amounts abroad (about $4 billion) and because Arab oil producers have deposited an estimated $2.5 billion in London's banks. The nation could be brought to the edge of bankruptcy if it started encountering difficulty renewing its loans or if the Arabs suddenly withdrew their deposits.

Wage Hikes. For the past seven months, Labor has tried to stem inflation, but with little success. Wilson has relied on persuasion to limit wage hikes. His chosen instrument has been "the social contract," an informal agreement between trade unions and government in which union leaders have pledged to seek salary increases only if they are needed to maintain their members' standard of living. So far, the social contract has not been tested by any major labor-management dispute. Many are skeptical whether Wilson's policy of persuasion alone could restrain wages if subjected to a series of important contract talks--such as the traditional autumn-round. Any attempt to put teeth into the social contract, however, would almost certainly split the Labor Party. Economist Peter Jay warns that an incomes policy "can be trapped like a billiard ball between its commitment to full employment, to stable prices and to collective bargaining. At that point, governments that depend on satisfying those three points cease to be possible."

The tenor of the Labor government deeply worried the middle classes. At first it was thought that Wilson, because of his precarious position in Parliament, would attempt to form a moderate consensus government. Instead, he appointed leading members of Labor's outspoken left wing to important Cabinet posts. Anthony (Tony) Wedgwood Benn became Minister for Industry and proposed "planning agreements" with the country's top 100 companies--a first step, many felt, toward outright nationalization. The Exchequer went to Denis Healey, who during last February's campaign pledged that he would cause "howls of anguish" from the rich. Actually, the higher taxes he imposed on those in the upper income levels and on corporations primarily hit the middle classes. The policies of Benn and Healey helped precipitate the drop in stock market prices and erode savings but, more important, they suggested that Wilson was a hostage of the Labor left wing and the unions.

Wilson realizes that Labor will have to broaden its appeal if it expects to win a majority of Parliament's seats. To placate the middle class, Labor in its election manifesto has reduced the number of industries earmarked for nationalization. To soothe the many Britons who still oppose membership in the Common Market--which the Tories boast was Heath's most important achievement as Prime Minister--Labor promises to hold a referendum within twelve months on withdrawal from the EEC.

The Tories are making inflation and Wilson's failure to handle it the campaign's main issue. They have promised to avoid the "confrontation politics" that led Heath to try last winter to force wage guidelines on the coal miners (leading to the miners' disastrous 11-week slowdown and 4-week strike). But the Conservatives insist that they are still prepared to enact laws to enforce wage-price restraints if necessary. They are also calling for strict control of public spending and for a more moderate growth of the money supply. These measures could probably slow the surge in prices, but they would also spur greater unemployment. Thus the Tories' proposals are hardly designed to change the conviction of many union members that Heath has governed on behalf of the middle classes at the expense of the working people. Heath hopes that the specter of another Labor government will bring back to the fold those Tories who either sat out the last election or voted Liberal.

There is almost nothing new in the campaign rhetoric of either the Tories or the Laborites. Thus there is little to change the minds of the two-thirds of the electorate (according to recent polls) who believe that neither party has the answers for their country's problems. A young Birmingham housewife mirrored this frustration when she told TIME: "The fight has been taken out of the people. You have Labor in, then suddenly the Conservatives come back, and then Labor again. It's like another cook taking over the stove and buggering the dinner. I don't care who does it just as long as something is done!"

Turned Off. Last February, more than 6 million Britons (about 19.3% of the electorate) took a plague-on-both-your-houses attitude and voted for the resurgent Liberal Party. Largely because of Jeremy Thorpe's vibrant personality, the Liberals appeal to voters who are turned off by the leadership of both major parties. The Liberals are committed to mandatory wage and price controls. Yet they also call for increases in the minimum wage and pensions--measures that would probably add to inflation. Although Thorpe's party will emerge from the elections a distant third, it could garner enough seats to deprive either major party of a majority. The Liberals might then be wooed as partners in a coalition government.

Regional nationalism, a once quixotic movement that has intensified and turned serious in the past three years, could also prevent a Tory or Labor majority. The Welsh nationalists currently have two members in the House and could pick up a third. The Scottish National Party, which won 22% of the vote in Scotland last February, now has seven seats at Westminster; some observers believe that they could double that number next month. Labor and the Conservatives are both trying to cut into the Scottish Nationalists' constituency by promising an impressive range of public-works projects for Scotland. Moreover, in a sharp reversal of its longstanding opposition to regional autonomy, Labor now advocates an elected Scottish assembly and an executive with broad powers over local issues.

These concessions may not be enough. With their newly discovered North Sea oil bonanza, a growing number of Scots feel that they will soon have the economic base to separate from England. Observes John P. Mackintosh, Scottish historian and Labor Party candidate from Berwick and East Lothian: "When you look at the performances of the government in London, what is there to be proud of? What are you left to cling to? We could hardly do worse."

Long Queues. Such gloom is widespread, reports TIME'S Herman Nickel. "Surveys reveal that well over 1 million Britons [out of a total population of 56 million] now express a firm intention of emigrating; 4.5 million are considering it. There are long queues waiting for immigration permits outside the Canadian and Australian High Commissions. An exodus of the sizable American community has already begun.

"There are doubts that the Parliament elected next month will be able to solve the country's problems. 'Real power,' notes former Labor Minister Lord Chalfont, 'is moving away from the elected legislature' and toward mighty nonelective bodies such as the trade unions. Polls indicate that only 10% feel that the government is the real power in Britain; 66% think that it is the unions. Heath's disastrous confrontation with the coal miners revealed the limits to an elected government's ability to enforce its policies."

It is this crisis of official authority that has spawned the controversial vigilante movements that are now being organized throughout the country. Sir Walter Walker, 61, former commander of NATO's northern flank, claims to have already recruited 100,000 volunteers for his "civil assistance" movement, which plans to keep power plants going and sewage flowing if labor unions launch a crippling strike. Colonel David Stirling, 58, a onetime commando leader, is organizing a smaller group of professionals, called "GB '75," for the same purpose.

Observes Nickel: "Though it is easy to lambaste those volunteers as Blimpish strikebreakers, they reflect the middle class's deep-seated anxiety that Britain's traditional institutions (which it controlled for so long) are giving way to new power structures dominated by the working class. Yet the crisis is more than a class conflict. The unions will soon be competing with each other for shares of the nation's shrinking economic pie."

Grand Coalition. Historian A.J.P. Taylor, a longtime Labor supporter, is more optimistic; he believes that Britain will eventually rouse itself to master this crisis, just as it has others. He argues that so far--despite gloomy economic statistics--most Britons have maintained their living standard. As more begin to feel the pinch and are convinced that "national unity will produce results," national unity will appear, most likely in the form of a coalition government. Indeed, there is increasing talk about the possibility of a coalition Cabinet. Tories and Liberals have already indicated that they are prepared to join one. Labor is opposed, however; its participation would be required for the kind of "wartime" grand coalition capable of making controversial economic decisions.

If the new Cabinet does not provide leadership, Oxford Political Scientist Alastair Buchan foresees, there will be a period of confusion and unstable majorities and coalitions resulting in a realignment of political forces. During this realignment, according to Buchan, the House of Commons may be divided along ideological lines, like a Continental Parliament. For example, there could be a new, centrist mass social democratic party, attracting the disenchanted from the ranks of Labor and Tory. To its left would be the radical remnants of today's Labor Party; on the extreme right would be a hard-line Tory Party dominated, perhaps, by Maverick Enoch Powell (who is planning to return to Commons via a safe seat in Northern Ireland). The regional nationalists, Liberals and others would all form minor blocs, creating "a spectrum rather than the present solid two-party basis," concludes Buchan.

Britain has survived wrenching political realignments before: the struggle of the middle classes for power in the 1830s and 1840s, the rise of Labor and the collapse of the Liberals in the early years of the 20th century. This time, however, there are fears that the country may not have the stability and resilience to survive the change with its parliamentary system intact. The august London Times has ventured to ask whether the voters in next month's election may not be choosing Britain's "Last-Chance Parliament." That warning may be a bit shrill, but the nation has no time to lose in demanding the sacrifices that are needed to solve its economic problems. If the new government fails in that, voters next time may be tempted to embrace more radical solutions.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.