From Mrs S. A. Haynes, MRPharmS
SIR,—Until recently I was counted with the “apathetic majority” who did not bother to vote in the Council elections. However, listening to other people’s views and ideas made me realise that I was ducking my responsibility. This year I voted, despite the fact that I felt I had very little on which to judge the merits of the various candidates.
Having been reminded of my responsibilities I took much more notice of what was going on in the Council and I have followed discussions both in The Pharmaceutical Journal and elsewhere with interest.
I have to say I am disappointed. It seems I have helped to elect a Council whose business is covered with a veil of secrecy, and where there are searching questions needed about expenses. I am also concerned that Hemant Patel was not given his expected second term as President. The Council is clearly a very divided body for this to happen. Whatever Mr Patel’s strengths and weaknesses, I know one thing about him. During his term as President, for the first time ever I felt I really knew who the President was. I judged him to be a sincere and well meaning person — exactly the sort of person who should be on the Council. Maybe that is why he was removed from the presidency.
I have a nasty feeling that the membership get the Council they deserve, because the Council is elected by a minority, and many of the discussions I have read and heard centre on the problem of getting more people to vote in the Council elections. Having recently been a member of the “silent” two thirds, I feel my views may be of some value. I did not vote because I did not know who I was voting for and I felt unable to judge the merits of the candidates on the scanty information I was given. (Would allowing canvassing really be such a bad thing by the way?) I also did not vote because I could not see what good it would do me. Despite my vote, there was no one candidate I could really say was there to represent me.
The idea proposed by Mr Fox (PJ, August 28, p321) of incorporating an element of regional representation has much to commend it. Each member would then have someone who would be “our” member, elected by us, and answerable to us. If they let us down, they would obviously not be re-elected by us! I think this idea is called “democracy”.
I know that there would be many drawbacks to such regional representation. I hope there will be other ideas put forward. But this idea deserves a closer look. Would it really be any worse than the situation we currently have? In fact, all such ideas deserve a closer look because there is one option we cannot take — and that is to do nothing.
Sally A. Haynes
Selly Oak, Birmingham