It is one of those questions that the partial-democrats mock, but it has never been more crucial; what is your vote for? Too much of our political culture in Britain (although this is changing in Scotland) still sees a vote as a weapon of last resort. Democracy, for the partial democrat, is about giving legitimacy to what was going to happen anyway. If what was going to happen anyway becomes just too much for the public to stomach (or if they just tire of the incumbents or, on a rare occasion, are actually enthusiastic about an alternative choice) then they can invoke their right of veto and bring in the next lot. And then it is back to business as before.

Blair is the partial-democrat par excellence. There are two ways in which this is easily recognisable. The first, and by far the most obvious, is the manner in which he views international democracy. In Blair’s world view, the purpose of the United Nations is not to make a reasoned, debated, democratic decision but to give legitimacy to the actions of the powerful. A vote is a tribute, not a decision. The second example of Blair’s partial-democratic credentials is the slippery approach to ‘the issues’. Blair often claims that what he is really talking about is what people really care about (down with a ban on fox hunting which no-one cares about, up with refugee-bashing ‘cos the people ain’t keen on them foreigners). He would have us believe that this is the principled, issue-led politics which we elected him to deliver. But Blair does not actually fight on the issues. He has only two approaches; deference to values we can’t disagree with and a simple “look, I’m a pretty straight sort of a guy so trust me”. These have absolutely nothing to do with the issues, and if anyone attempts to pin him down on issues he instantly shuts up shop. “But surely foxhunting is simply wrong and a moral stance should be taken” will be met with either “what we want to do is improve schools and hospitals for the ordinary people of Britain” (nothing to do with the issue) or “no-one wants to see a fox hurt, so trust me and I’ll make sure we get round to it” (again, nothing whatever to do with the issue). Whenever a matter needs to be debated, Blair makes out like an American General and fights the battle from such a height above the targets that you can’t actually make them out one from another. And he expects us to act like American fighter pilots – just press the button and trust in those wiser than you.

Blair does not actually want you to vote on the issues. But, whether he likes it or not, that is what your vote is for. Almost no-one from any political persuasion would argue that we should have a public referendum before every major decision – John Reid’s claim that this is what those trying to slow the rush to war are looking for is dishonest. We elect a government to make these decisions and we hold them to account for the decisions they make at the next election. But if we DON’T hold them to account, then the system is failing.

So what does this mean for May 1 in Scotland? Jack McConnell does not have the luxury of Westminster’s elected dictatorship. Scotland’s democracy actually requires that politicians continue to develop consensus, partly through arguing a case (as opposed to informing us of what the decision is). And yet, in his way, Jack also has partial-democratic tendencies. Those running the Scottish Labour Party’s election campaign are desperately hoping that this will be a myopic election; that people will actually cast their vote on the basis of which party they believe will be most efficient at clearing up dog shite. Frankly, they aren’t even going to want the public to debate the issues in the health service, only whether Jack can be trusted to run it.

But this is not what votes are for. If we accept that each decision is made by the politicians we elect, it is essential that we elect the politicians who are going to make the decisions we want. The manifestos only cover a smallish proportion of what an administration will actually do so the issues are only a guide to what we can expect from the politicians we are electing. They are a proxy for the ideological approach each party will take. So we should certainly vote on the basis of the differing attitudes between the parties to involving private finance in public delivery, but this should also tell us the way those politicians will behave when a decision comes up that hasn’t been foreseen. If they will put profit before people once, then they will do it again.

More than anything the Scottish Labour Party don’t want people to have their vote influenced by the war. This is about choosing a set of policies on health and education, they argue, and nothing to do with Westminster or foreign policy. Wrong. This is about deciding whether we can trust a political party to do the thing we want them to do. There is no doubt that Scotland has grave concerns about following America as part of its global lynch mob, and noone really thinks it is in our interest, so if our First Minister is willing to put the interests of Tony Blair and George W. before our own, then it is a reason to vote. Blair, as much as Jack, is desperately hoping that there is no electoral consequences of their actions, no ‘blowback’ as the CIA would call it. And that is why they are partial-democrats.

This is not to say that Labour are alone in this. You may have concerns about voting for the SNP and their business tax cuts? If they are willing to give this to business to keep them happy, then what else? What it is to say is that, all these pro-market, pro-war ideologues who try to tell us that ideology is dead want us to vote on anything other than ideological grounds. This issue of the SLR tries to show how to make sure that your vote does exactly that.

One way or another, blowback is coming, Jack