“If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, “But what shall I do?” my answer is, “If you really wish to do anything, resign your office.” Civil Disobedience. Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

“It is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are those least suited to do it.” The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Douglas Adams (1952-2001)


Many people who are rightly outraged by the behaviour of successive governments, nonetheless refuse to get involved in electoral politics. It's true that campaigning for a political party is a massive drain of energy. If you lose, you lose everything – all the energy you've put into a campaign is pissed into the wind and you have to start from scratch next time around. If you win, you usually lose as well, because as they say, “no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.” You get a psychological boost in the short term when “your” candidate wins, followed by the slow realisation that very little has changed. This due to the fundamental nature of political parties, in fact, of hierarchical organisations in general: they are designed to channel the energy of those at the bottom to achieve the goals of those at the top.

Because on some level most people are aware of this, there is practically a taboo against the idea of using the electoral system to achieve political goals like justice, peace and ecological sustainability – even though these ideas, at least in principle, are supported by the vast majority. Mention voting and people switch off straight away.

Nowadays, most campaigners seem to think that direct action and/or civil disobedience are the path to achieving change. Yet what usually happens is that the campaigners, having achieved their sound-bite in the media, use it to call on the government to do something about the problem. The government invariably turns a deaf ear and continues to promote its own interests, namely, the centralisation of political and economic power. As Gordon Brown supposedly remarked when climate campaigners scaled the House of Commons, “Decisions are made on the floor of Parliament, not on the roof.” Protest, and you are ignored; remain silent, and your silence is taken as consent.

Campaigning for political change while ignoring the electoral process is like playing football with only defenders: however well you play, you're never going to do better than a nil-nil draw.

I want to suggest that it is possible for grassroots campaigners to use the electoral system to achieve political change, without falling under the spell of the political parties, and without ploughing huge amounts of energy into a campaign that will show little or no lasting benefit. Essentially, the approach I propose is as follows: candidates who represent no political party, only themselves (and by association the communities in which they live), but who are locally known, respected and above all trusted, stand for election with the single pledge to resign if elected.

At first glance, it may seem that a candidate who pledges to resign if elected cannot change anything, because they won't be in power for long enough. Not so! By getting elected and resigning, they will have done what no politician ever could: namely, to honour the trust that the voters have placed in them, by fulfilling their election manifesto to the letter. Not only have they (temporarily) kept the career politicians out of power, but more importantly, they have established a standard of trust against which any other candidate can be measured. In future, it would be nearly impossible for a candidate or a party to win power unless they meet that standard of trust. The effect on politics in the UK (where distrust of politicians and political parties is at historic levels) would be no less than a political earthquake.

Obviously, the key to this idea is the fact that it is offering voters the chance to vote for someone who is the opposite of a career politician. That is, someone who is trustworthy, someone who doesn't want power over others, someone who is recognised as playing a positive role in their community. In other words, you're giving voters the option of choosing someone they would actually want to vote for, instead of merely the least bad of several crap candidates. And because they have pledged to resign, nobody is going to have second thoughts about what they might do once they are in power.

Because fundamentally this idea is offering voters the chance to do something they want to do anyway, namely vote for someone they can trust, it has the potential to do what any new idea needs to do in order to become popular, namely, to go viral and spread by word of mouth. There's no need to invest a lot of money and energy in publicity – if it's going to work, it will be by spreading virally. In fact, all that needs to be done at this early stage is just to pass the idea on, get the word out by whatever means are available. This is the first step; choosing candidates can be done later (and there is no point in doing so until the idea is well established, anyway.)

Some people may think that this is an attempt to create a new political party. Not at all. In fact it's the opposite – if successful, this would help to eliminate political parties as we know them. It's crucial to note that there is no centralised organisation to this campaign. The most that there could be is a website to serve as a reference point and put people in touch with others in their local area. Candidates are chosen entirely at local level. I say “are chosen” but a better word would be “emerge”. In principle, since they are going to resign anyway, it doesn't seem to matter much who stands as a candidate, provided they are trustworthy, not linked to any political party, and obviously not on an ego-trip. This isn't meant as a publicity boost for (local) celebrities, and the golden rule should be that nobody who puts themselves forward should be considered. Remember, this is the opposite of politics as usual.

Here are a number of possible names and catch-phrases, see what you think:

None of the Above: This has been used before for similar campaigns, but with a crucial difference in emphasis: it highlights the negative, protest-vote side (voting against the other parties) rather than voting for a trusted and respected community member. Interestingly, in 2005 the words “None of the Above” were banned from appearing in the name of a political party. No problem there as we aren't creating a party.
Unrepresentatives: Because the candidates are representing nobody but themselves, and to imply that they are no less unrepresentative than the career politicians.
Vote Local: Just as when you shop local your pound stays in the community, when you vote local (for a candidate who pledges to resign), the moral authority represented by your vote stays in the community instead of being sent to Westminster. Short and neutral.
Sack the Parties: Does what it says on the tin.
Vote King Log: Based on the old fable of King Log (who was a log, and did nothing) and King Stork (who ate all the frogs).
Use your vote as a veto: Again, emphasises the negative side of voting against the parties.
What's the opposite of a politician?: For me this comes closest to the heart of the idea, but it isn't really a slogan so much as a riddle.