Just as the first swallow sighted indicates the arrival of better weather, so the appearance of letters discussing voting processes indicates the arrival of the Council elections. The same old points and bugbears will be raised:
Rather than have the normal election post mortem, where very valid points are made but soon forgotten, a discussion of the Council election process should be forthcoming now. This may even promote a new electoral issue for candidates to consider.
Our seemingly paltry 19–23 per cent turnout is as good, if not better, than that for other professional bodies (eg, the vote for the president of the Law Society averages about 20 per cent). This does not excuse the fact that there is a high degree of voter apathy within the profession. Why is this? Why do pharmacists turn out to vote in higher numbers every five years for MPs, whom they will have little contact with or influence over and where their vote is one of 30-odd million, and yet not vote in Council elections which involve like-minded, similarly educated people, directly representing their interests and influencing the movers and shakers of society.
Do pharmacists believe that their general election vote is of more value than their yearly Council one? Is it just a habit that we get into - or indeed out of? The old adage of "if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain" could be applied to the non-voters but, of course, if they believe that there is not anyone representing their interests, why should they bother? Maybe the habit would be more readily acquired if the membership viewed their elected representatives as having the political clout to change how our Society is run and how the Government treats us as a profession. Compared with other health care professions, we appear very apolitical: doctors, dentists and nurses are successful in acquiring benefits for their members; how often are we? Full-time political "animals" are needed on the Council whose active roles are to get pharmacy noticed by politicians and general public alike.
How to vote is an area that I and others have commented upon in the letters pages in the past. Little more needs to be said except that a "seven X" system is more than adequate. It is far simpler than a single transferable vote and has been recently shown to give the same results (PJ, February 19, p295). This method would encourage some to vote who get as far as choosing their favoured candidate but have no desire to work out who their second, third, etc, preference candidates are. Indeed, is it worth making a fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh choice? The "seven X" system gives all choices an equal chance of election. The process is simpler to administer, and would surely save the Society time and money.
There have been calls for a method of fairly representing the various sectors within pharmacy on the Council. Independent community pharmacists argue that they need strong representation on the Council to survive. Fair enough - but why not have allocated seats dependent upon the proportion of pharmacists within each sector to make it fair for all parties? A start would be to ensure that the hospital and industrial sectors are adequately represented - at least one seat for an industrial pharmacist, and about five or six for hospital pharmacists. The Council must be seen to represent all pharmacists, otherwise 25–30 per cent of the electorate are immediately alienated from the process because it is felt that "there is no one from my sector standing so why should I bother?". The other advantage of sectoral seats would be the accountability factor, eg, hospital pharmacists would know that their representative would understand hospital issues and could be confident that such issues would be dealt with in context and with the required emphasis.
Geographical representation would be more complicated to organise but, again, would give the electorate a Council member who was truly accountable to them - someone to whom they could direct their queries.
At present, the general voter has no focal point to contact. These methods would provide the focus. It may involve more financial input by the Society but accountability is a key to reducing voter apathy.
Canvassing is a bone of contention that has been discussed vigorously in the past. The present arrangements of allowing only a short statement, the answering of three topical questions and the possible appearance at an organised hustings is, in a democratic society, quite pitiful and sells the electorate short. Even though canvassing is restricted officially, unofficially any individual who stands who coincidentally is an employee of a multiple chain company will have "silent" canvassing power. Anything said will come across to hundreds of voters as "I am one of you, vote for me". These individuals gain from the restrictions - a sole practitioner would find it difficult to have access to such a large electoral base. Current Council members also have an advantage as they can continually "canvass" over their three-year term of office through the pages of The Journal, branch meetings, etc. This is to the detriment of new, hopeful candidates, who only have the set procedural methods currently in place in which to sell themselves.
The fairest method would be to allow, as Members of Parliament are allowed, a set canvassing budget along with stated procedural methods by which candidates are allowed to canvass, for example by in-house journals, websites, e-mails, flyers, etc. This budget could even be obtained from central funds, maybe with a deposit system payable by each candidate, returnable if a set percentage of votes is obtained. This would encourage only the really motivated political animals among us to take the plunge.
Canvassing would then be directed to the masses in a free and open way instead of the clandestine method by which it is performed at present.
The above are my thoughts on changing a system that has altered little since I qualified in 1992. The current election process does little to encourage new faces on to the Council or to motivate the electorate to vote. My opinions will be highly contentious to some but it is to be hoped that they will encourage a frank and full debate - something that is our right in a democratic society.
This article is not an opening gambit on obtaining a Council seat - it could, of course, be viewed as canvassing. I would, however, welcome any candidate who has the foresight to:
My comments constitute an open challenge for Council election candidates in the new millennium. Which is it to be? A new way of thinking, or the same old story? It is for members to choose.
Martin Palmer is a pharmacist who is currently working for the City law firm, Lovells