Democracy, if it is to be a useful term, should denote a system that delivers, as far as is possible, what people want, and genuinely represent their collective and individual interests. The empty rituals of tweedledee and tweedledum parties competing for the spoils of office at regular intervals, voted for by electorates kept ignorant of the real political and economic issues by a media almost solely owned by a ruling class, are as "democratic" as an ant colony.
John Green
London
In reading Martin Jacques's article I was at first a little confused by most of its conclusions. The roots of its inaccuracies were soon located, however, in the second paragraph. "The boast of democracy" is a result of the defeat of fascism, while it was "bloodied" by the conflict with communism. For an article based largely on history, this seems somewhat surprising. Jacques seems to refuse to accept that the 90-year, three-cornered war between parliamentarianism, communism and fascism is over, and the centre right won. Hence the lament over the end of the Labour movement, which it is claimed did so much to force democracy on Britain, while it is conveniently forgotten that the followers of Hegel were in the ascendant contemporaneous to the followers of Marx.
The most revealing complaint, however, is that there is no longer a choice allowing people to vote other than for the free market - the simple reason for this is that all other systems have now been discredited and defeated. While Jacques argues that democracy is dying because of private firms and individuals financing parties, I suggest he looks back 100 years. If he does, he will find the same thing on a grander scale. The reason we are no longer offered a choice at elections is because the answer to the question Jacques is determined to keep asking has already been given. That answer is capitalism, and the free market.
WD Carter
Swindon, Wilts
The problem with Jacques's account is his assumption that democracy is only justified if it provides a unicausal and instrumental explanation of economic takeoff. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that democracy alone is sufficient. But democracy combined with economic and social factors usually seems to be important. Furthermore, the prime reason for advocating democracy is not instrumental, it is a value in its own right - participating in government is part of what it is to be human.
Alfred Webb
London
Martin Jacques has provided a timely reminder that big business and the rich now control the professional machines that used to be political parties. The old-fashioned parties allowed their members to influence policy, and they provided voters with real choice. With the creation of New Labour, members found they had lost their influence. Hence the current decline in party allegiance and the increase of other forms of political activity: new parties are being formed, public protests are more common. Tony Blair should remember the lesson of the poll tax riots: governments cannot go on making decisions that the voters do not want made.
Fred Lowe
Dublin
