WHEN is a democracy not a democracy? Why, when the majority has voted for the other side of course.

It is alarming how frequently the inherent contradiction here seems to elude some of the more... passionate in our society, as for all its faults our system works pretty well.

“It is a dictatorship of two parties,” cry dissenting voices, yet the fact remains that while change will not occur in practice - for that is the wish of majority - in theory we could vote out every MP currently sitting in the next election and replace them with whomsoever wishes to stand.

And with the internet, with social media and smart phones and a mobile workforce, it surely couldn’t be easier to make that happen.

So, Dorset’s councils are currently discussing proposals to combine into an undetermined array of unitary super councils, the principal purpose of which, they say, is to prepare for the transfer of additional responsibilities to local government as part of Tory devolution plans, and for the loss of their grant funding.

Devolution is a prospect that should delight any democrat. The closer a source of authority, particularly one bearing vital responsibilities, is to those who hold it accountable the more likely it is to reflect the will and needs of the majority.

There is only one snag. Voter turnout for council elections is consistently poor.

Except where they are combined with a General Election, as was the case last year, turnout typically hovers around 35 per cent.

Devolution in this case will transfer powers and responsibilities from a central authority which is kept in check by at least 60 per cent of the electorate, to a local authority system which barely more than a third of us bother to participate in.

Now of course that need not be the case. As with General Elections above, the freedom to vote remains in force, and every elector in Dorset could choose to take part in polling for these new authorities, and could in the process completely transform the landscape of local government in the county - if we were so minded.

But that is not going to happen, we all know that. The powers being mooted for devolution, already transferred in some parts of the country, will involve handing councils greater control over education, planning, business support schemes and transport - in some cases health provision as well.

Cynics (among those opposed to the idea) may suggest that the Government is offloading service provision onto councils with the intention that many such schemes will eventually have to be abandoned altogether, shrinking the state through stealth.

Taking the reforms at face value however, this form of devolution has yet to be justified on the basis of accountability. In theory, here, it will give Dorset residents a bigger say in the governing of our county. In practice, it could well have the opposite effect.

One possible solution presents itself to me. That is holding regular local referendums on planned policies.

These polls, whether local or national, generally attract high turnouts as, rather than voting for a particular ward councillor whom most people, lets face it, have never met or heard of, and rather than voting for a local political party which often seems to derive its identity more from cliques and vendettas than a consistent policy platform, residents can choose directly whether they like an idea or not.

There are many complaints about referendums, most commonly that voters don’t understand the background to the issues involved through lack of education and experience.

But if the provision of public services, not to mention tax raising powers, is to be passed down to bodies with a greatly reduced mandate, should we not consider other means for ensuring we get the government we deserve.